# Ni socionics-Question



## SciLenss (Oct 15, 2014)

I'm new to socionics and I might be wrong, but I see Ni as a function that works in unconscious and brings to conscious information that we percieve as what we call 'feelings about x object', or rather 'hunch'based on this: 
Ni-Intuition of time
Ni is responsible for the estimation of the passage of time, the understanding of a course of processes in time, and forecasting, associated with belief of aliens, religion, the Illuminati, or even vampires. Ni understand how things change and evolve over time and throughout history and perceives the inevitability of future events and notices ties to the past. b Ni shows it's presence in person's ability or inability to forecast and plan for the future, evade all sorts of troubles, avoid taking wrong actions, and learn from past experience.

If that's the case,my Ni is quite strong and I go with all my hunches most of the times, despite the fact there's no prove they are right, I'm rarely wrong. When I don't listen to this 'inner voice', however, I have this restless feeling, and feel that I'm betraying myself by not going with those 'feelings' or ideas that come out of nowhere. I don't now what my type is yet, I only know that my Te, Ne, Ti and Fi are strong(Se, Fe and Si are my weakest) and I thought my feeling of restless when not listening to what Ni tells me could mean I have Ni in my Ego block. Could this be the case? I also noticed I feel this way when I find I'm not doing what I have to do, I'm not being efficient at work, if my work isn't meeting the standards I impose to myself, if I feel I don't take my responsibilities seriously(is this Te?). Anyway, the question is: is that restless, vulnerable feeling correlated with ignoring an Ego function, or is independent of functions and depends on individual?
Sorry if this doesn't make sense or it's stupid, I'm new to socionics, and there still are some things I don't understand.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

SciLenss said:


> I'm new to socionics and I might be wrong, but I see Ni as a function that works in unconscious and brings to conscious information that we percieve as what we call 'feelings about x object', or rather 'hunch'based on this:
> Ni-Intuition of time
> Ni is responsible for the estimation of the passage of time, the understanding of a course of processes in time, and forecasting, associated with belief of aliens, religion, the Illuminati, or even vampires. Ni understand how things change and evolve over time and throughout history and perceives the inevitability of future events and notices ties to the past. b Ni shows it's presence in person's ability or inability to forecast and plan for the future, evade all sorts of troubles, avoid taking wrong actions, and learn from past experience.




Haha the illuminati? What's your source for this? ^^



> If that's the case,my Ni is quite strong and I go with all my hunches most of the times, despite the fact there's no prove they are right, I'm rarely wrong.


Can you give some specific examples?



> When I don't listen to this 'inner voice', however, I have this restless feeling, and feel that I'm betraying myself by not going with those 'feelings' or ideas that come out of nowhere.


Listening to your inner voice can also be associated with Fi or Ti in many aspects.



> I don't now what my type is yet, I only know that my Te, Ne, Ti and Fi are strong(Se, Fe and Si are my weakest)


What makes you say Se, Fe and Si are your weakest? How do you define them?



> and I thought my feeling of restless when not listening to what Ni tells me could mean I have Ni in my Ego block. Could this be the case? I also noticed I feel this way when I find I'm not doing what I have to do, I'm not being efficient at work, if my work isn't meeting the standards I impose to myself, if I feel I don't take my responsibilities seriously(is this Te?). Anyway, the question is: is that restless, vulnerable feeling correlated with ignoring an Ego function, or is independent of functions and depends on individual?


This sounds a lot like enneatype three, with maybe some type one in the mix?
3 - Enneagram Type Three: The Achiever
1 - Enneagram Type One: The Reformer
What do you think of these?

My boyfriend is an ILI and doesn't have very high standards for himself, he's a rather passive guy living mostly in his head overall. I also know a lazy-ass LIE. On the other hand my mother is IEI (and therefore terribly poor at Te usage) and a very efficiency driven person so I wouldn't correlate Te with efficiency by default. 

I'm not the best person to define Ni though since I dont use it so I'll let someone else get to that ^^


----------



## SciLenss (Oct 15, 2014)

Multiple sources, I don't know exactly where that part comes from, as I usually compile information from different sources. I don't care about the Illuminati btw. 
I'm quite spiritual I'd say, usually my beliefs aren't same as other people around me, and I also believe in stuff others don't(mostly based on experience, but not only).


Examples- I suffer alot less from things that are deceiving than other people because I don't get close to them like others do. I see THROUGH people, situations.
I believe in paranormal stuff(is this Ni enough? LOL)
I'm good in business, I seem to see all the possibilities and know exactly which one is successful and which one has no chance of working. I can easily say which things is risky and which not based on seemingly no proof. - they all are just hunches, things that you just know, yet you have no idea where they're coming from. I sensed my father was going to die 2 days before he did. No idea where this came from, but it was right. 


Se is the ability to be assertive, mobilize others in things that you want to achieve, take charge. I see Se as impulsive, troublemaker/seeker, action seeking. - I kind of lack that ability, I 'm not good at mobilizing people. It's not that I'm not capable of it, I find that I usually have an exact idea of how stuff has to be done, and if people would follow my suggestion would be great, and work results would be excellent, but I always kind of ran off the idea of leadership because I didn't want to deal with people who wouldn't accept my leadership and I avoid any circumstances of finghting with people. So I believe I'm a capable person in conductiong work that leads to best results, if all people accept me as their leader. If they don't I suppose I COULD make them to and be harsh and authoritarian with them if I'm in a higher position than them, but that would be a bit drainig for me. 




Fe-I find Fe responsible with the ability to be involved and involve others in some kind of emotional atmosphere. I associate it with feelings that get to meet the exterior world and little psychological distance between people. 'Fe people' share their emotions.- I don't seem to be able to do that, except for my family. It's not really my thing as I seem to keep all I feel and all that's going on with me for myself. I find it difficult to socialize with people at that level, I prefer the 'political', more formal approach of this, rather than this sort of emotional involvement.


Si-'Si focuses on tangible, connections between processes, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. physical awareness of motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. Introverted sensing would be more concerned with dressing how they feel is appropriate. A person dominant in this function would want to do things that make them feel comfortable and secure. Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals. They like to believe that if activities are done with enjoyment, people will give them more effort and time, and also becoming more skilled at what they are doing in the long run. They believe that goals should suit people's intrinsic needs rather than shaped by the demands and constraints of the external world, and so do not try to force others into doing things they don't want to do. They also try to be easygoing and pleasant, preferring peaceful coexistence to conflict, except when their personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake.' - I don't have a good grasp or understanding on what Si does exactly, but compared to Se, Si seems more concerned with their social status, with how people see them, while I see Se as more autoritharian and concerned with ACHIEVING something other than good relationships and nice impressions in other's eyes like Si does. Si wants acceptance, is more compliant. Se wants results, leans more towards professional achieving. 


I can feel both of them are weak within me, I'm not even sure if I can say which one I resemble more. 






As for the enneagram:
3- Key Motivations: Want to be affirmed, to distinguish themselves from others, to have attention, to be admired, and to impress others.- This isn't me at all. I find 3 as very superficial, as if they don't have a desire/goal of their own, they strive for what society and families or their environment thinks they should be/do. I know a 3, and although I appreciate that person because of the success and the hard work and the efforts, the motives, the reasons of all theese puts me off. I'm fairly sure I'm not a 3, if I would, I would care more about what society/people say, I wouldn't do all the crazy things I do and I wouldn't isolate myself from the people, if I'd want to be admired by them. I don't try to be efficient, self-sufficient and independent for people to admire me, I do them because theese things are the only ones that make me feel satisfied about my existence, and when I feel I'm not like that, my inner balance shutters and I feel worthless. 


As with the 1- Key Motivations: Want to be right, to strive higher and improve everything, to be consistent with their ideals, to justify themselves, to be beyond criticism so as not to be condemned by anyone. 
Basic Fear: Of being corrupt/evil, defective
Basic Desire: To be good, to have integrity, to be balanced- Although I am a perfectionist, and I don't like being criticised, I believe criticism is constructive. I don't have such fears as 1s, being good, having morality is not my purpose, I find myself being more fair than good, favoring rather justice than mercy, making decisions using my head, not my heart. I can somehow relate to 1s but I think 1s go much far with that than I do.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

SciLenss said:


> Multiple sources, I don't know exactly where that part comes from, as I usually compile information from different sources. I don't care about the Illuminati btw.
> I'm quite spiritual I'd say, usually my beliefs aren't same as other people around me, and I also believe in stuff others don't(mostly based on experience, but not only).
> 
> 
> ...



Aside from that last one about your dad these are all very concrete though, Se would easily be able to tell these things through heightened awareness of the potential kinetic energy of objects or situations. Paranormal stuff is not function related, imo.




> Se is the ability to be assertive, mobilize others in things that you want to achieve, take charge. I see Se as impulsive, troublemaker/seeker, action seeking. - I kind of lack that ability, I 'm not good at mobilizing people. It's not that I'm not capable of it, I find that I usually have an exact idea of how stuff has to be done, and if people would follow my suggestion would be great, and work results would be excellent, but I always kind of ran off the idea of leadership because I didn't want to deal with people who wouldn't accept my leadership and I avoid any circumstances of finghting with people. So I believe I'm a capable person in conductiong work that leads to best results, if all people accept me as their leader. If they don't I suppose I COULD make them to and be harsh and authoritarian with them if I'm in a higher position than them, but that would be a bit drainig for me.
> 
> 
> Fe-I find Fe responsible with the ability to be involved and involve others in some kind of emotional atmosphere. I associate it with feelings that get to meet the exterior world and little psychological distance between people. 'Fe people' share their emotions.- I don't seem to be able to do that, except for my family. It's not really my thing as I seem to keep all I feel and all that's going on with me for myself. I find it difficult to socialize with people at that level, I prefer the 'political', more formal approach of this, rather than this sort of emotional involvement.
> ...



Hm, well admittedly that wasn't the best description either so that's my bad. General descriptions aren't the most reliable sources for truly understanding typology, I don't think type three is as approval oriented to someone who uses Fi (which you definitely do, from what I've seen here). I'd define type three as a compulsion to judge your worth by your achievements which does seem like something you do? But I could be wrong or it could be caused by something else than enneagram.




> As with the 1- Key Motivations: Want to be right, to strive higher and improve everything, to be consistent with their ideals, to justify themselves, to be beyond criticism so as not to be condemned by anyone.
> Basic Fear: Of being corrupt/evil, defective
> Basic Desire: To be good, to have integrity, to be balanced- Although I am a perfectionist, and I don't like being criticised, I believe criticism is constructive. I don't have such fears as 1s, being good, having morality is not my purpose, I find myself being more fair than good, favoring rather justice than mercy, making decisions using my head, not my heart. I can somehow relate to 1s but I think 1s go much far with that than I do.



Ok then maybe not 


Just some overall thoughts from what you've said:
This was all very literal and concretely oriented. You have a sort of super direct way about you which I'm finding a little difficult to approach as someone who has Se in my super-ego block, which would point to Se ego for you. In your description I think you put a bit too much emphasis on the aspect of mobilizing people, I think it's more about overall force of will, the capacity to be unwavering in opposition, confrontational, which from reading that ILI/LII thread you made, you damn are! It's also not necessarily impulsive, and everything you say about you valuing being productive and actual achievement is Se. However it points more to Se creative since as you said you are more reluctant to take charge even though you're capable.


Which leads me to my second point, you seem like a Fi base. You seem to know yourself and your preferences better than anything. You speak of maintaining inner balance and a need to feel satisfied about your existence. Fi is definitely something I'd qualify as an "inner voice" and not listening to it would likely make one restless. I don't think Ni is really an inner voice as much as it is a way of seeing things, Fi is the standards you live by. Also, you don't detach yourself too much from the scripted, textbook definitions of functions, which is a common approach among Fi base types because that's how Ti manifests as a role function (something to do with function dimensionality but I suggest you don't get into that right away). A logical Ego type would've derived their own understanding and rephrased it a while ago. Do you relate to the following description of Ti role in ESI? Don't take it all too literally, remember it doesn't all have to fit you like a glove, just the overall idea




> ESIs may have a tendency to become caught up in justification for their actions, and in matters of theoretical consistency, evaluation of relative importance, and objective decision-making. They commonly see the justification of their actions according to logical and existing scientific principles as important and worthwhile, and may conscientiously wish to behave rationally and sensibly -- though they may have less interest or patience in relating their actions to theoretical material that is overly abstract. However, in fields where the practical applications of their work are based on theoretical, academic, or scientific knowledge they may feel the importance of understanding the conceptual or theoretical backing behind their actions, and they may become somewhat mired in attempting to make sense of the theoretical structure, often devoting excessive time to understanding the subject, leaving out important details, twisting facts inadvertently, and losing track of their organized arguments.
> ESIs usually approach the arena of academia and theory formally, trying to make sense of abstract principles by sequential organization, memorization, and force of will. They may push themselves academically while working inefficiently to the point of wearing themselves out.



By the way being an ESI would mean you have Ni as a mobilizing function so you're not all that wrong about it being strong since imo ESI's can have a good use of it. It's also not uncommon for people to overuse and over-identify with their mobilizing so that might explain why you relate to it a lot.


----------



## SciLenss (Oct 15, 2014)

'ESIs usually approach the arena of academia and theory formally, trying to make sense of abstract principles by sequential organization, memorization, and force of will. They may push themselves academically while working inefficiently to the point of wearing themselves out.'- The last part of this, I don't know what to say about it. I find that doing what I have to do energizes me, I feel the need of feeling effient(Fi or maybe Te?).

'Se[...]it's more about overall force of will, the capacity to be unwavering in opposition, confrontational' -I see your point, I agree with you about my other posts and how I come off, except that I can only be that way when I don't consider I talk with people(if that makes sense). When I'm face to face with people, I'm not confrontational at all, I try to be much softer in communication and more formal/polite. Also I might be unwavering on the inside, but on the outside I don't like to show that.
Example: Person X: We should go out sometime, talk about that, drink a coffee etc.
Me: *Faking a smile* Absolutely, yes!
Person X: Okay, may I have your phone number again? I lost my phone and agenda and etc.
Me: Oh, I don't know my phone number, but I have yours and I will call you when available.


Now an example from work: Boss: You need to smile more, even if you tell bad news to people. A bit more enthusiasm, please.
Me: Okay, I will try.
Client: Hello!
Me: *death stare* Hello.

So, you see, I'm not that confrontational as I seem around here. I only seem that way because I let my mind and thoughts etc engage in some discussions I'm confused about. When I'm online It seems that my 'humanity' dissapers, along with any thought or attitude that could tell I realize I'm actually still talking with people.


Maybe this would help. I agree with the results, I think I agree with the results, althought not sure about my Fi being higher than Ni. And I cannot come to a conclusion as to which one of my 3 weakest functions is my PoLR(Fe, Si, Se, as despite the test results, I'm having trouble assessing which one is actually my weakest, I would go with Fe or Se though).


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

SciLenss said:


> 'ESIs usually approach the arena of academia and theory formally, trying to make sense of abstract principles by sequential organization, memorization, and force of will. They may push themselves academically while working inefficiently to the point of wearing themselves out.'- The last part of this, I don't know what to say about it. I find that doing what I have to do energizes me, I feel the need of feeling effient(Fi or maybe Te?).




Well from what I've just read in another thread about how you don't notice hunger or sleep deprivation, I'd say you do do it to the point of wearing yourself out, whether you consider that "worn out" or not.





> 'Se[...]it's more about overall force of will, the capacity to be unwavering in opposition, confrontational' -I see your point, I agree with you about my other posts and how I come off, except that I can only be that way when I don't consider I talk with people(if that makes sense). When I'm face to face with people, I'm not confrontational at all, I try to be much softer in communication and more formal/polite. Also I might be unwavering on the inside, but on the outside I don't like to show that.




Yep that's pretty common on the internet, we all let out our inner demons here  I'm sure many people who are argumentative on PerC are a lot more avoidant IRL, it's always easier when you're in front of a screen than in front of a person. 





> Example: Person X: We should go out sometime, talk about that, drink a coffee etc.





> Me: *Faking a smile* Absolutely, yes!
> Person X: Okay, may I have your phone number again? I lost my phone and agenda and etc.
> Me: Oh, I don't know my phone number, but I have yours and I will call you when available.
> 
> ...





I think we agree on the fact that you're an introvert, so Se wouldn't be your base in any case, but just to clear up, I'm not saying Se seeks conflict everywhere, that's simplistic. Se types can of course uphold friendly and cordial bonds with people, since that's a basic necessity to function in our society anyways. Neither of these situations were situations of opposition, which is where Se plays out so those examples don't hold since they're just common everyday interactions. Just for the sake of argument though, what you described is, in a certain sense, confrontational, because it's simply not in a cooperative spirit. 
Also, the thing with Fi is that while it cares most about its internal position, it also cares about external harmony to a varying extent (much less in ESI's than EII's). I think this does a good job of describing how this plays out in ESI's:




> ESIs' attitudes towards others are commonly characterized by skepticism and distrust, and their overall demeanor may be private, closed, uncommunicative, and individualistic. They may feel as though they can see into the motivations and character of others [...]. They may by nature adopt a standoffish attitude in lieu of a conciliatory one, which may in fact only serve to aggravate their emotional conflagrations. At the same time, however, they may strive to treat others with reciprocity and fairness rather than preemptive judgments. In this way, their behavior can be an internal conflict, oscillating between the predominance of a curtain of friendliness and a core of distrust. Most commonly, ESIs hold an air of both amicable receptiveness, but also one of penetralia and unapproachability.


This is exactly what you described above, the contradiction between internal unwavering versus external friendly attitudes.





> So, you see, I'm not that confrontational as I seem around here. I only seem that way because I let my mind and thoughts etc engage in some discussions I'm confused about. When I'm online It seems that my 'humanity' dissapers, along with any thought or attitude that could tell I realize I'm actually still talking with people.




Actually, it's rather relevant that you became confrontational specifically in a situation concerning a theoretical structure (typology), and that it confused you in the first place. It's characteristic of Ti super ego to grow tense in these sorts of situations. More on Ti as a role function:




> The individual is able to talk about things from a dispassionate academic or theoretical point of view for brief periods of time, but seems overly bookish when doing so and tends to grows tense. When feeling obliged to justify logically a personal decision taken for reasons determined by Ti, the individual attempts to do so but grows quickly annoyed especially if the inconsistency in the logical argument is pointed out.







> Maybe this would help. I agree with the results, I think I agree with the results, althought not sure about my Fi being higher than Ni. And I cannot come to a conclusion as to which one of my 3 weakest functions is my PoLR(Fe, Si, Se, as despite the test results, I'm having trouble assessing which one is actually my weakest, I would go with Fe or Se though).




I have complete disregard for tests, it's a very poor way to type yourself compared to actually understanding what the functions mean beyond the external/behavioral manifestations of them. That didn't do a good job of portraying the functions but that's just my opinion. If you've spent even just a little time understanding JCF (and I'm no expert so do take what I say with a grain of salt) it's clear that you can't pin down something as complex and multifaceted as someone's cognition with an automated test.


If we go with my theory though your PoLR would be Ne so how about you define it (in your own words) and give some specific examples of times you think you've used it?
Maybe the best way would be to explain your understanding of some theoretical concept you're interested in and spend a lot of time thinking about (other than typology), what interests you about it and how you went about understanding it.


----------



## SciLenss (Oct 15, 2014)

'Actually, it's rather relevant that you became confrontational specifically in a situation concerning a theoretical structure (typology), and that it confused you in the first place. It's characteristic of Ti super ego to grow tense in these sorts of situations.'-I'm still learning about Socionics, and I probably didn't get a full grasp on it just yet. And it's not the theoretical stuff/structure that confuses me, BUT HOW TO APPLY IT TO MYSELF. I find myself especially difficult to type. This is where my mind's conflictions come from. I like theoretical structures, no problem with that, but in this particular situation where I can't seem to stand out as a candidate for a specific type without being so unsure about it because I can identify with some other types as well is making me so eaget to pin this down as soon as possible. I want a conclusion, and that conclusion doesn't seem to come to me as fast as I want or as fast as I'm used with, which makes me weight the facts I already know about socionics and apply to me, and I lose time with that instead learning the whole system first, and applying it afterwards.


I agree tests are unreliable, and I wouldn't have posted the link to my results id I weren't sure to an extent that's how I actually use all of my functions considering the actual means of each of them.



I see Ne as responsible with the ability of seeing more approaches or solutions of the same problem or situation. Ne deals with possibilities. I see Ne kind of curious, as it also speculates as WHY something happens the way it does.(or at least that'
s what I read about it)

I personally don't think Ne has any chance as my PoLR, I use it quite alot, in any situation, actually. I definitely use it more than people around me. Everytime I want to so something I'm thinking about all the possibilities(sometimes even the most absurd, improbable ones) take all the things into account, and also think about the same situation questioning the validity of some information I already am sure of because I don't want to fall for traps. 
Not sure if this is Ne, but I will say it anyway. I find that I'm never satisfied with just knowing that something occurs, I also NEED to KNOW WHY. I also believe that there are times when the reason of something/someone is more important than what happens/that person's actions. I like to see through things, not just take them as they are, but also question them, to the point nothing is a surprise anymore. It's like a puzzle that needs to be solved. When something is solved, I get bored instantly and move to the next.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

SciLenss said:


> 'Actually, it's rather relevant that you became confrontational specifically in a situation concerning a theoretical structure (typology), and that it confused you in the first place. It's characteristic of Ti super ego to grow tense in these sorts of situations.'-I'm still learning about Socionics, and I probably didn't get a full grasp on it just yet. And it's not the theoretical stuff/structure that confuses me, BUT HOW TO APPLY IT TO MYSELF. I find myself especially difficult to type. This is where my mind's conflictions come from. I like theoretical structures, no problem with that, but in this particular situation where I can't seem to stand out as a candidate for a specific type without being so unsure about it because I can identify with some other types as well is making me so eaget to pin this down as soon as possible.


I'd argue that understanding a theoretical system would imply that you can see how it applies to reality, otherwise I don't think you can say you've understood much really.





> I want a conclusion, and that conclusion doesn't seem to come to me as fast as I want or as fast as I'm used with, which makes me weight the facts I already know about socionics and apply to me, and I lose time with that instead learning the whole system first, and applying it afterwards.


I'm not a logical type myself, but even I know it's far from logical reasoning to try and apply the flawed understanding you have rather than expanding and correcting it first, out of sheer and utter impatience. This is literally what weak logic _is_. And I didn't mean that in an offensive way, I did the same thing when I first worked my way through JCF, which is kind of my point.





> I agree tests are unreliable, and I wouldn't have posted the link to my results id I weren't sure to an extent that's how I actually use all of my functions considering the actual means of each of them.


Well, no, a person can't value both Te and Ti, or both Ti and Fi, or both Ne and Ni. If you value one you necessarily devalue the other so this can't be how you actually use your functions.





> I see Ne as responsible with the ability of seeing more approaches or solutions of the same problem or situation. Ne deals with possibilities. I see Ne kind of curious, as it also speculates as WHY something happens the way it does.(or at least that's what I read about it). I personally don't think Ne has any chance as my PoLR, I use it quite alot, in any situation, actually. I definitely use it more than people around me. Everytime I want to so something I'm thinking about all the possibilities(sometimes even the most absurd, improbable ones) take all the things into account.


This is one of the main misconceptions about Ne. Possibilities are a consequence of how Ne sees things, they are not themselves the core of the function.
As I said in response to your PM, Ne is awareness of the internal makeup of external phenomena. It conceptualizes things by taking apart their different components and seeing how they all fit together (according to a sense of internal consistency which comes through Fi or Ti) and then relates these ideas to a bigger picture. This means it's intrinsically driven to expand and may have difficulty following a single path or just 'knowing' where things are going like Ni does because it's not good at making its mindset converge.
So yes, Ne is potential, but not quite in the sense often portrayed. It doesn't mean "yay, possibilities a-go-go", a Ne ego type is able to discriminate between which are worth considering and which are completely absurd, it is focused on _real_ potential. Inability to do so and a need to have absolutely all your bases covered is more indicative of low-order Ne.





> and also think about the same situation questioning the validity of some information I already am sure of because I don't want to fall for traps. Not sure if this is Ne, but I will say it anyway. I find that I'm never satisfied with just knowing that something occurs, I also NEED to KNOW WHY.


Suggestive Te (ESI and EII):


> Reliable information rather than the finished analysis is what attracts the individual; facts and explanations, not answers limited to the conclusions. For the same reason, the individual avoids people who are inclined to give out unreliable or simply untruthful information.






> I also believe that there are times when the reason of something/someone is more important than what happens/that person's actions.



Concerning "someone's reasons and their actions", that's Fi. Fi judges things based on motive where Fe judges based on impact. 





> I like to see through things, not just take them as they are, but also question them, to the point nothing is a surprise anymore. It's like a puzzle that needs to be solved. When something is solved, I get bored instantly and move to the next.


Can you give specific examples of these puzzles and your method of approach?
I'm repasting the question I put in my previous post because you didn't address it and I think it's essential: Explain your understanding of some theoretical concept you're interested in and spend a lot of time thinking about, what interests you about it and how you went about understanding it.


----------



## SciLenss (Oct 15, 2014)

I didn't say I value both Ni, Ne, Ti, Te, I just said I think I use them all quite alot. Are you talking about socionics or MBTI now? (asking çause in your PM's you talk mostly about MBTI) 

As for your question, I'm still thinking about an example.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

SciLenss said:


> I didn't say I value both Ni, Ne, Ti, Te, I just said I think I use them all quite alot. Are you talking about socionics or MBTI now? (asking çause in your PM's you talk mostly about MBTI)


Um no? I think the cognitive functions are the same regardless of the system. There are diverging opinions on this but that's mine.
Valuing a function means using it in socionics ^^


----------

