# Enneagram was Easy. This? Not So Much...



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

*0. Is there anything that may affect the way you answer the questions? For example, a stressful time, mental illness, medications, special life circumstances? Other useful information includes sex, age, and current state of mind.*

In my teens. I have ADHD (inattentive subtype), but it's well managed. Also, I suspect that my cognitive functions are on the Fe-Ti and Ne-Si axis, but feel ambigious about what's dominant. They all seem equally relevant to my thinking. 

*1. Click on this link:*Flickr: Explore!*Look at the random photo for about 30 seconds. Copy and paste it here, and write about your impression of it.*










Interesting; is the bridge shaking intended to be suggestive of the up-and-down pounding motion of jogging? It's rather effective. They probably achieved this effect in post; motion blur like that doesn't usually come at those slow speeds and would be hard to replicate with special-effect lenses. I'm noticing a bit of "ghosting" (not sure if it's called that) around the runner, looks like some slight oversharpening going on there. It's not a bad effect for the image though, especially in black-and-white. The crack in the pavement is a good leading line, brings a light color into the lower half of the frame to balance things out. Overall a good photo.

*2. You are with a group of people in a car, heading to a different town to see your favourite band/artist/musician. Suddenly, the car breaks down for an unknown reason in the middle of nowhere. What are your initial thoughts? What are your outward reactions?
*
"Why are we stoppin-oh crap. Are we going to be stranded here? Wait, of course not, we have cell phones. Wow, I feel really bad for my friend driving. He's probably going to have to pay a lot of money for that. I mean, I think so... how expensive IS this gonna be for him? There goes his saving plans. Guess we'll be late to the concert now."

My outward reaction would probably be similar. Confusion, then oh crap. I'd probably go through the cell phone thought quickly enough to not bring it up, but once the driver has stopped the car I'd probably start asking them what was wrong before they even had a chance to check it. Then if they figured it out I'd ask them in a concerned tone if it was going to be too expensive. After that conversation, I'd start asking the car in general how we plan on getting to the concert. My eyes would probably dart back to the driver here and there. 

*3. You somehow make it to the concert. The driver wants to go to the afterparty that was announced (and assure you they won't drink so they can drive back later). How do you feel about this party? What do you do?
*
If I've gotten talked into a concert, it's probably because I really like the artist or am interested in the performance. My personality's not very... partyish in general and especially not big partyish. I'm going to end up on the outskirts of the fun and want to go home, and my feelings will be intensified by the fact that I didn't plan to attend. 

*4. On the drive back, your friends are talking. A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward reaction? What do you outwardly say?
*
This happens all the time for me. My inward reaction begins with a flare of rudeness ("yeah THAT'S a stupid idea") that quickly dies down as I go into logical mode. Depending on how developed their initial claim was, I'll either ask for them to elaborate or start tossing back a few counterpoints. I don't tend to get too offended by debates even if I get vehement in my opinion. 

*5. What would you do if you actually saw/experienced something that clashes with your previous beliefs, experiences, and habits?
*
I politely voice my objections. I don't like to antagonize people, so even if I hold strong opinions on the subject, my speaking tone is conciliatory. This makes the rare occasions where I lay down ultimatiums hit hard and unsettle people. 

*6. What are some of your most important values? How did you come about determining them? How can they change?
*
Work ethic. Always. 

School has never easy for me despite the fact that I get good grades. I ask the teachers tons of questions and sit with my math on the weekends, trying to put it together in my head. But in the end I retain most of the information I learn and I am richer for it. Last summer I put in the time to understand how the four-stroke combustion engine worked. Cars make just a little more sense to me. The chemistry I retained from school didn't hurt with that understanding, by the way. You can apply a good work ethic to exercise, finances, anything. It improves your life and makes you a better person. 

*7a. What about your personality most distinguishes you from everyone else? 
*
I'm very analytical. I like categorizing things into little boxes and lists and A to B logic, and when I explain my rationale behind my decisions to people, it tends to produce a "...you really thought about this" reaction. I go through TV shows, movies, etc. slowly because I'll just pick a tv show for a month or more and chew on it with reviews and fan discussions before I move onto something new. 

More idealistic than average, too. Really trusting sort here. Breaking rules makes me feel uncomfortable on a vague skin-crawling level unless I have a plan to justify it. I'm also, however, pretty skeptical in my day-to-day life and often presume pragmatic motivations alongside emotional ones. Actually, pragmatic and emotional motivations can often be the same thing. People like satisfying their feelings. 

Fairly future-oriented outlook. I'm always looking forward to planning out my life and how things will go. I also pick apart the past. The present? Well, something had to give, I suppose. 

*7b. If you could change one thing about you personality, what would it be? Why?
*
There's a learned helplessness to my behavior at times that I really despise. Oh no, I'm afraid I'm going to screw up sharpening this knife... oh... you... I guess you just did it for me. Go to that party? Er, I don't get how those sorts of parties work or how I'm supposed to behave. I'm not sure about this. Oh... you said it's fine for me not to come? Oh... I guess.

*8. How do you treat hunches or gut feelings? In what situations are they most often triggered?
*
My gut feelings tend to be prickly and nagging. The voice in your head. I often get them when I feel like I should be doing something different from what I am. These are usually accurate; I feel better when I obey my conscience in this way. My hunches? Not so much. Either way, I filter these feelings through a bit of mental interrogation to distill where they came from, why I thought them, and how much I should consider them. I don't see anything contradictory in the idea of sourcing my intuitions. 

*9a. What activities energize you most? 
*
Video production and photography, since they're big hobbies of mine. Achieving something I worked hard for or jumping into something new. The feeling after I exercise where I'm totally empowered and self-satisfied. In the moment, being with friends and joking and being on top of the world.

*9b. What activities drain you most? Why?
*
Social activities are energizing in the moment but tire me out afterwards. It's all the energy spent on being "on". Dealing with irritating people and irritating noises. Doing activities that involve a lot of waiting but that you have to be alert for (like holding a camera on set). If I spend too much time alone at home, it'll get me in a negative spiral. There has to be a balance.

*10. What do you repress about your outward behavior or internal thought process when around others? Why? 
*
I try to tone down my really analytical thoughts, since they often only interest myself. I also lower my vocabulary a bit around some people because I want to communicate clearly. Hold back on mean but somewhat funny thoughts I have unless I know someone well. 

I swear so much less in public than I do at home. I've had a lot of religious friends where that language made them uncomfortable and it's a habit I've carried over to the present day. NOBODY believes me when I tell them I swear quite willingly at my house. I let out one "shit" and they all swivel around like deer in the headlights.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

How about ISTJ?


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Weekend said:


> How about ISTJ?


Hm, what made you think of that?

I initially typed as ISTJ a few years back, but I'm not sure I really identify with Te/Fi. I'll admit that my understanding of the functions is shaky, though.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Just a heads up, this formatting will probably annoy you but I can't be bothered to make it look nice right now (my Fi).

1. You went into so much detail (Si). Also the general tone of the way you write seems ISTJ to me.

2. I'm an ISTJ and the way you would respond to this question is like mine. You're thinking about saving plans and all that lol. (Si, Te) Wondering if it's going to be too expensive. How we're going to plan on getting to the concert (Si - pulling up relevant information, Te - making a plan).

3. "If I've gotten talked into a concert" - again, like a 'plan' but the focus here is that it's an agreement. "...my feelings will be intensified by the fact that I didn't plan to attend." - My feelings (Fi), I didn't plan to attend (Si, Te). You'll drive an ISTJ all sorts of crazy when you say one thing and don't do it.

4. Logical mode, I don't tend to get too offended by debates even if I get vehement in my opinion. - (Si, Te, keeping in mind Fi - the way you express yourself). ISTJs tend not to get heated.

5. I politely voice my objections. I don't like to antagonize people, so even if I hold strong opinions on the subject, my speaking tone is conciliatory. (Fi) Again, this whole thing sounds very ISTJ.

6. Work ethic. Always. - Yep. They call the ISTJ "duty fulfillers" here. Just a stereotype but it's a position we find ourselves in a lot. Maybe you can relate to that?
trying to put it together in my head. - Seems like you're compiling it, organising it, ordering it, etc.
understand how the four-stroke combustion engine worked. Cars make just a little more sense to me. - Yep. This is kinda how we 'work'. When we can finally understand how things work, things make sense. Okay, that probably sounds obvious but it's just something ISTJs are like so I felt to point it out.

7a. I'm very analytical. I like categorizing things into little boxes and lists and A to B logic, and when I explain my rationale behind my decisions to people, it tends to produce a "...you really thought about this" reaction. - Detail (Si), rationale/decision/categorising/ (Te)
I go through TV shows, movies, etc. slowly because I'll just pick a tv show for a month or more and chew on it with reviews and fan discussions before I move onto something new. - Yep
Breaking rules makes me feel uncomfortable on a vague skin-crawling level unless I have a plan to justify it. - Yep (Si)
I'm also, however, pretty skeptical in my day-to-day life and often presume pragmatic motivations alongside emotional ones. - (Te, Fi)
Fairly future-oriented outlook. I'm always looking forward to planning out my life and how things will go. I also pick apart the past. - Picking out the past and planning (Using what you know from Si, turn it into a plan (Te)). You mention not so much the present - No, you really are considering the present. The actions for your future plans are gradually played out in the present. ISTJs are very steady in their actions.

7b. Oh no, I'm afraid I'm going to screw up sharpening this knife... oh... you... I guess you just did it for me. - Lack of experience (not enough information / experience in this to build up enough Si to carry through, also shows inferior Ne).
Go to that party? Er, I don't get how those sorts of parties work or how I'm supposed to behave. - You need to be told what to do / have experienced it before / observed it before (Si).
I'm not sure about this. Oh... you said it's fine for me not to come? Oh... I guess. - (Si, Ne)

8. My gut feelings tend to be prickly and nagging. The voice in your head. I often get them when I feel like I should be doing something different from what I am. These are usually accurate; I feel better when I obey my conscience in this way. - (Si, Fi)
My hunches? Not so much. (Ne [inferior])
Either way, I filter these feelings through a bit of mental interrogation to distill where they came from, why I thought them, and how much I should consider them. I don't see anything contradictory in the idea of sourcing my intuitions. - Yeah

9a. Achieving something I worked hard for - completing it, very ISTJ.

9b. Social activities are energizing in the moment but tire me out afterwards. - Introvert
It's all the energy spent on being "on". Dealing with irritating people and irritating noises. Doing activities that involve a lot of waiting but that you have to be alert for (like holding a camera on set) - Yep, totally relate. A lot of people don't seem to get this because they don't bother to be switched on while doing these things in general - unless of course it's one of their passions.
If I spend too much time alone at home, it'll get me in a negative spiral. There has to be a balance. - Yeah, I need to be out so I can use my Te and Ne in society otherwise things feel pointless.

10. I try to tone down my really analytical thoughts, since they often only interest myself. - Yeah
I also lower my vocabulary a bit around some people because I want to communicate clearly. (Si, Te... maybe Fi?)
Hold back on mean but somewhat funny thoughts I have unless I know someone well. (Fi)
I swear so much less in public than I do at home. I've had a lot of religious friends where that language made them uncomfortable and it's a habit I've carried over to the present day. NOBODY believes me when I tell them I swear quite willingly at my house. I let out one "shit" and they all swivel around like deer in the headlights. - You demonstrate good self-control when you feel it's needed; very ISTJ.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Ah, thank you!

I thought that having to rearrange information to fit your internal logic was more of a Ti thing, though?


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Yah.

Which fits you best?

* *




Do you feel curious about what is happening and want to figure out how or why it is happening? Do you often try to figure out exactly what caused an event/behavior and fix any problem? Do you feel the urge to push boundaries just to observe what will happen? Do you enjoy patiently building up useful knowledge and skills? Do you feel it necessary to observe/analyze from an impersonal distance in order to maintain impartiality (and feel frustrated when others do not do the same)? Are you easily annoyed by inaccuracies or falsehoods or “irrelevant” information?




* *




Do you pause or hesitate and try to figure out if you’ve experienced something like this before, scanning for some familiar object, detail, or feeling to hang your hat on? Do you prefer to use already known or well-established strategies and methods to handle problems? Do you easily feel overwhelmed or anxious when confronted with a completely new situation you’ve never experienced before? Do you get easily flustered when people/situations do not behave as you expect or if you are forced to improvise without enough guidance or rules?


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

I'll bold what fits and underline what doesn't. 

*Do you feel curious about what is happening and want to figure out how or why it is happening? Do you often try to figure out exactly what caused an event/behavior and fix any problem?* Do you feel the urge to push boundaries just to observe what will happen? *Do you enjoy patiently building up useful knowledge and skills? *Do you feel it necessary to observe/analyze from an impersonal distance in order to maintain impartiality (and feel frustrated when others do not do the same)? *Are you easily annoyed by inaccuracies or falsehoods or* “irrelevant” information?

It seems like I don't identify with the parts above that sound like inferior Feeling, whereas I do identify with the parts of the following description that sound like inferior Intuition:

*Do you pause or hesitate and try to figure out if you’ve experienced something like this before, scanning for some familiar object, detail, or feeling to hang your hat on?* Do you prefer to use already known or well-established strategies and methods to handle problems? _(not unless they're *my* strategies)_ *Do you easily feel overwhelmed or anxious when confronted with a completely new situation you’ve never experienced before? Do you get easily flustered when people/situations do not behave as you expect or if you are forced to improvise without enough guidance or rules?*


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Thanks for doing that.

The above was supposed to represent Ti, the below, Si.

Now I can see why you bolded those in the top because Si is actually also concerned about those things. What you actually underlined definitely shows to me you are not Ti (Si also doesn't like those things).

I really do believe your natural preference in life is Si as a dominant function. I see what you mean by the parts you underlined. I understand we are not blind following the blind, what is written is a general statement. Si is largely about comparison (noting what is different / what stands out) and noticing what works best. It is only natural to want to make improvements but in general as Si users, if it ain't broke we most likely ain't gonna fix it. When we want to improve on things and use *our* strategy is when we use what we already know (Si) and turn it into plan (Te).


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Let me know if you need more clarification on your type. I can go into the inferior function with you.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

I'll see if there's any dissenting viewpoints (and I'm still not sure I really understand what Te and Fi actually do), but for now I'll go with ISTJ. I think the most likely alternative would be ISFJ since it has the extroverted feeling that I like and the same Si-Ne dynamic, but I'm not sure I'm feeling > thinking either.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Information on the functions:

Te

* *




Do you feel it necessary to make a plan or change/improve the situation? Are you naturally motivated to make a situation more “normal”, “appropriate”, “effective”, or “efficient”? Do you hate the feeling of leaving an obvious problem unresolved (regardless of whether it involves you)? Do you instinctively want to set a clear goal and try to achieve it quickly? Are you easily annoyed by signs of incompetence in yourself or others? (Extraverted Thinking or Te seeks to follow, create, maintain, or streamline systematic rules/standards to achieve greater order and predictability in the world)




Fi

* *




Is it very important to you to “stay true to yourself” no matter what is going on? Do you tend to focus in on any conflict or potential for conflict? Do you feel quite uneasy, resentful, or internally conflicted when people act in a way that you disagree with? Do you pay close attention to whether individuals are treated fairly (as opposed to impersonally/dismissively)? Do you need a certain degree of privacy and intensely dislike situations that even slightly infringe upon your/others’ personal space or boundaries, and then feel a very strong urge to speak up or protest? (Introverted Feeling or Fi seeks to analyze personal experiences as a means to create a set of values for determining what is good/bad or right/wrong for oneself and, by extension, other people)




Fe

* *




Do you feel the urge to make sure everyone is okay or on the same page? Do you feel like you naturally gauge the social “temperature” or “atmosphere” of a room as soon as you walk in? Do you feel very uneasy when others seem dissatisfied or unhappy or express negativity? Do you instinctively want to smooth over interpersonal conflicts (regardless of whether they involve you)? Are you easily annoyed when people seem inconsiderate, aloof, uncooperative, or unappreciative? (Extraverted Feeling or Fe seeks to maintain or build interpersonal bonds and social structure in order to achieve harmony and intimate connection among people)


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

I'll do the same "bold is agree, underline is disagree". 

*Do you feel it necessary to make a plan or change/improve the situation? Are you naturally motivated to make a situation more “normal”, “appropriate”, “effective”, or “efficient”? Do you hate the feeling of leaving an obvious problem unresolved (regardless of whether it involves you)? Do you instinctively want to set a clear goal and try to achieve it quickly? Are you easily annoyed by signs of incompetence in yourself or others?* (Extraverted Thinking or Te seeks to follow, create, maintain, or streamline systematic rules/standards to achieve greater order and predictability in the world)

Is it very important to you to “stay true to yourself” no matter what is going on? *Do you tend to focus in on any conflict or potential for conflict? Do you feel quite uneasy, resentful, or internally conflicted when people act in a way that you disagree with?* Do you pay close attention to whether individuals are treated fairly (as opposed to impersonally/dismissively)? (sometimes, but I care more about the impersonally/dismissively part)* Do you need a certain degree of privacy* and intensely dislike situations that even slightly infringe upon your/others’ personal space or boundaries, and then feel a very strong urge to speak up or protest?(Introverted Feeling or Fi seeks to analyze personal experiences as a means to create a set of values for determining what is good/bad or right/wrong for oneself and, by extension, other people)

*Do you feel the urge to make sure everyone is okay or on the same page? Do you feel like you naturally gauge the social “temperature” or “atmosphere” of a room as soon as you walk in? Do you feel very uneasy when others seem dissatisfied or unhappy or express negativity? Do you instinctively want to smooth over interpersonal conflicts (regardless of whether they involve you)? Are you easily annoyed when people seem inconsiderate, aloof, uncooperative, or unappreciative?* (Extraverted Feeling or Fe seeks to maintain or build interpersonal bonds and social structure in order to achieve harmony and intimate connection among people)


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

So what I posted there were examples of how the dominant version of that function would behave. I think you understand already how Ne functions - how different it is when it is dominant and when it is inferior, which is also different to how it acts out a certain way when we are under stress. You could use that knowledge as a guideline to how Fi, Fe, and Te are when they are in different orders.

Would you confirm if you really think you're dominant Si? Because if you believe you are (like I do), you have two options:
ISTJ - Si > Te > Fi > Ne
ISFJ - Si > Fe > Ti > Ne

Fi/Fe can be tricky so here's how I go about determining them:

As a general rule I put some of the evident values/morals aside so that I can look into natural preference, what you naturally would go to, not something you've learned to do if that makes sense. It might be hard to draw a fine line...

As an ISTJ using Te and Fi, when I make decisions I'm very logic based, thinking about the resources available to me (Te). In an ideal world I could make decisions in this way and it would suit me.

Throw some people into the mix and I know that I have to consider people's feelings. The amount I consider people's feelings will be somewhat based on my Fi. What I value, what my morals are. If I don't see people as important per say, I'm going to carry on with the same logical mindset just as before. If I see value in people's feelings or opinions I will adjust the way I go about things. Ultimately this may cause me to appear as a feeler (using feeling as a decision maker) overall, just because my Fi (my values and morals) are taking precedence over Te.

You could also say that in order for something to be efficient (Te) you need to consider people's feelings anyway but this is besides the point. I'm focusing on how much a person cares and how that can cause ambiguity when determining functions (especially when you're reading people's answers - where they are not determining it themselves).

People with Fi can be considerate of other people's feelings but when we think about them, we think about each person and their own feelings as a separate thing, next to another person and their own feelings, each unique to the individual. Fe will look at other people's feelings as a collective.

*Fi is processing and responding to information through emotions and subjectivity:
*- adherence to personal beliefs concerning what is important
- evaluates situations by choosing what they believe is congruent with their personal identity
*
"What is important"
*
Some indicators:-
- you feel strongly no matter how others feel
- conceals emotions (does not mean they never let it out), values identity, in touch with your own feelings (over others)
- evaluate based on your own inner value system*

Fe is about attending to how other people are responding to you, social appropriateness and attending to words:
*- honouring others' needs and preferences and connect with people by sharing values and taking on other peoples' needs as their own
*
"What we need"

*Some indicators:-
- experiencing the emotions of those around you
- express your emotions outwardly, sensitive to criticism, values harmony, lives according to social norms
- evaluate based on what is good for others or expected by society

There is a mark difference in how an ISTJ or an ISFJ appear to others:

Online you can note the language they use. ISTJs are very straight-forward, somewhat serious and dull sounding most of the time. ISFJs appear mellow, patient, gentle and considerate.

So why does that happen?
ISTJ: Si > Te > Fi
ISFJ: Si > Fe
Fe is higher up on the function stack of an ISFJ, they're going to have more focus on it.
Fi is third on the function stack of an ISTJ, they're going to focus on Te, and Fi will be thrown into the mix whenever appropriate.

Also, if you observe them face-to-face, ISTJs tend to look very serious, be quiet (or not when Te is activated). ISFJs, while quiet, will not look so serious, they will look more welcoming because of Fe.

When they're in a group situation you'll notice that if an ISTJ wants to say something, they most likely will - even if others don't want to hear it (because it might hurt them / push their buttons) and ISTJs can be quick to respond. In comparison, an ISFJ will appear much quieter, slower to respond because of this function stack Si > Fe > Ti. When they're in Ti mode they'll have to keep going into their minds to pull information out. It's a slower process.

Basically ISFJs care more about harmony and peoples feelings.
ISTJs care more about efficiency and getting things done.


Oh I have to add... ISFJs can indeed produce work that's very thorough (and efficient) thanks to Si and Ti. So you'd really have to focus on how they behave around people.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Weekend said:


> Would you confirm if you really think you're dominant Si? Because if you believe you are (like I do), you have two options:
> ISTJ - Si > Te > Fi > Ne
> ISFJ - Si > Fe > Ti > Ne


Yeah, dominant Si makes sense and might explain my focus on "this is how I see all the pieces fitting together" thinking style. And since I feel like thinking/feeling are both important to me, inferior intuition makes more sense than inferior thinking or feeling. I'm less confident in Ne areas even though I can enjoy thinking of future possibilities. 



> As an ISTJ using Te and Fi, when I make decisions I'm very logic based, thinking about the resources available to me (Te). In an ideal world I could make decisions in this way and it would suit me.
> 
> Throw some people into the mix and I know that I have to consider people's feelings.


See, this isn't really me. In an ideal world I'd mix both approaches since I consider them both two parts of full understanding. They're symbiotic, really. Gut feelings help you determine what facts are more trustworthy and feelings can be linked back to rationale. 



> People with Fi can be considerate of other people's feelings but when we think about them, we think about each person and their own feelings as a separate thing, next to another person and their own feelings, each unique to the individual. Fe will look at other people's feelings as a collective.


Hm. In life I usually flit between the two; "How is X person feeling? How does that fit into the group dynamic at large?". If you're familiar with enneagram, I'm social dominant. A lot of the stuff about Fe sounds very similar to social-dominant enneagram subtypes. 


* *




_Social instinct is not the same as socializing. This instinct is aimed towards species survival as a whole. It acts in species where families and groups exist to protect the vulnerability of mother and child. The social instinct provides a holding environment. It needs group viability for a sense of well-being.

Emphasis on cooperation, reciprocity, roles aimed at mutual survival. There is a need to be involved and contribute, a desire to be wanted and accepted by the group. It can sense when a behavior is damaging to group survival. It forms a sort of unconscious clusters where mutual support is an issue. This instinct is also attuned to hierarchy and possesses political awareness. It has a good sense and understanding of group boundaries and what groups can accomplish.

The SO energy is often described as "split energy" experienced as "scattered" and projected outward, appearing personable and cursory in nature. This subtype can "sacrifice for the group" to insure status. These types tend to "look outward," based upon a belief that "my value is dependent upon how I am perceived by the group." The survival strategy is an emphasis on sociability or unsociability. There is a noticeable inclination to categorize oneself in terms of others. The question "who am I?" is defined by "how comfortably and successfully I experience my group". Focus is on the issues dealing with how the person is being perceived by the group. 
*
Topics SO types might bring up in conversation:* cultural and political movements and developments, popularity, popular songs books movies memes, manners, social values, societal standards, rules, guidelines, social power structures (or subversion of the same; keep in mind that there can very well be a counter-culture or counter-group streak in Social firsts, and when the instinct is operating in health, this can be used to counter injustice or other forms of oppression etc. in ways that benefits society at large. A lot of social leaders that strongly and actively countered prevalent institutional discrimination and other oppressive norms were social firsts, Dr. King being a good example. It's about time that the social first=sheep stereotype be discarded), appropriateness/inappropriateness, friendship, family, inclusion/exclusion, fashion, glamor, fame, notoriety, organizations, clubs, group divisions pertaining to nationality religion race, etc., patriotism, civic engagement, influence.
_




*Now for the Fi traits:
*


> - you feel strongly no matter how others feel


This is probably because I'm not Feeling dominant anyways, but I don't always feel strongly. My feelings are often incongruous to those around me, though. 



> - conceals emotions (does not mean they never let it out), values identity, in touch with your own feelings (over others)


Don't care at all about identity. Others are true.



> - evaluate based on your own inner value system


Sure, although I wouldn't call it a system at all. More of a judge with a gavel. Systems and stuff seem to be more related to my sensing and whatever my thinking function is. 

*Now for Fe
*


> - experiencing the emotions of those around you


I pay attention to them and consider them when forming my own emotional reaction, but I don't really feel what others are feeling in a voodoo doll way. 



> - express your emotions outwardly, sensitive to criticism, values harmony, lives according to social norms


I express my emotions outwardly sometimes, but I usually do this by _telling_ people what I'm feeling. I'll often go "I'm excited!" or "I'm annoyed!" intellectually but not actually feel it within myself. My emotions often have a certain lack of intensity to them that I supplement by psyching myself up. _"Yeah, you should be really happy! Bounce around a bit and smile!"_



> - evaluate based on what is good for others or expected by society


yes yes yes this this a lot yes

----



> Online you can note the language they use. ISTJs are very straight-forward, somewhat serious and dull sounding most of the time. ISFJs appear mellow, patient, gentle and considerate.


Aw man, I wouldn't really call myself serious and dull sounding.  I do notice that in my head, I'm more meek and sheepish, whereas other people actually see me as more logic-based and willing to say what's on my mind. I'm usually described as friendly, kind, and helpful.



> Also, if you observe them face-to-face, ISTJs tend to look very serious, be quiet (or not when Te is activated). ISFJs, while quiet, will not look so serious, they will look more welcoming because of Fe.


Noticed the "tend to" there. I smile a lot. 



> When they're in a group situation you'll notice that if an ISTJ wants to say something, they most likely will - even if others don't want to hear it (because it might hurt them / push their buttons) and ISTJs can be quick to respond. In comparison, an ISFJ will appear much quieter, slower to respond because of this function stack Si > Fe > Ti. When they're in Ti mode they'll have to keep going into their minds to pull information out. It is a slower process.


I'm fairly outspoken in group situations in that I participate quite a bit, but I often hang back because of this tendency in myself. I don't want to be the person who talks all the time and doesn't let others get a word in edgewise. I remember a few years ago I got a teacher comment that "Stellafera makes such insightful comments in group discussions, but I wish she would talk more" and I was thrilled because it meant that I wasn't overdoing it. 



> Basically ISFJs care more about harmony and peoples feelings.
> ISTJs care more about efficiency and getting things done.


But I care about both! If I were to pick one of the two I'd go with the ISTJ way because you need to get stuff _done_, but I'm more likely to express this through nagging than I am through a very direct "this is what we're doing, get moving or get going" way. I'm trying to move towards a more straightforward leadership style since my nagging can be pretty annoying, though.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

hahaha... sorry about that. I understand where you're coming from.


Stellafera said:


> See, this isn't really me. In an ideal world I'd mix both approaches since I consider them both two parts of full understanding. They're symbiotic, really. Gut feelings help you determine what facts are more trustworthy and feelings can be linked back to rationale.


I was really using it as a blanket statement/example (sorry, it was misleading) as even I, personally, need people. Even when I organise things (Te), it's mainly for the sake of people. You are right, it is symbiotic.



> Hm. In life I usually flit between the two; "How is X person feeling? How does that fit into the group dynamic at large?". If you're familiar with enneagram, I'm social dominant. A lot of the stuff about Fe sounds very similar to social-dominant enneagram subtypes.
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


I'm not familiar with enneagrams but I did just read what you posted. Yeah, I also wonder about how people are feeling and how they fit in. I know I use Fi but I know I adjust very well to these things because of my values. But I do have to say, it's really not a go to function for me? I mean in comparison to Si and Te even though I can test high in it. 

However people say you can use all eight functions so...

But yeah, I don't want to tell you if you use Fi or Fe if you're unsure. Better you be the judge of that. Just because I said you were an ISTJ doesn't mean you actually are. 

I don't know too much about Fe since I don't believe I use it... if someone would like to correct me on that I'm all ears though lol.



> I express my emotions outwardly sometimes, but I usually do this by _telling_ people what I'm feeling. I'll often go "I'm excited!" or "I'm annoyed!" intellectually but not actually feel it within myself. My emotions often have a certain lack of intensity to them that I supplement by psyching myself up. _"Yeah, you should be really happy! Bounce around a bit and smile!"_
> 
> Aw man, I wouldn't really call myself serious and dull sounding.  I do notice that in my head, I'm more meek and sheepish, whereas other people actually see me as more logic-based and willing to say what's on my mind. I'm usually described as friendly, kind, and helpful.
> 
> Noticed the "tend to" there. I smile a lot.


xD xD yes... okay, where do I start... I usually _tell_ people how I feel too, like the examples you gave; but I also feel it a lot. And that's okay, you don't have to be serious and dull sounding either. You are like you said, more meek and sheepish. I said serious because in general that's the way ISTJs sound/online/face-to-face. But it also depends. Even for myself I can seem serious/boring or bubbly online, depending on what I feel like, also if I'm stressed I act out of character. 

Face-to-face I'm pleasant. If I'm working and no one is really around I tend to go serious. If I see people around, I'm very mindful of them so I go pleasant again, smiles and all (not fake either). I'm genuinely usually very chipper.

Now things like patience, blah blah are all things that can be learnt. When I noted these behaviours in ISFJs it's because it's what they are like in general. I'm sure you could find one that isn't, but the majority, as long as they're doing fine, will be very patient, gentle, etc.

I can also be those ways if I choose to be. 

In the ISTJ forum you'll probably come across people talking about how they don't smile much, etc. Well I see that they tell people that they look very serious. I have to admit it kind of upsets me at times because I know I don't generally appear that way to people - I appear happy.



> I'm fairly outspoken in group situations in that I participate quite a bit, but I often hang back because of this tendency in myself. I don't want to be the person who talks all the time and doesn't let others get a word in edgewise. I remember a few years ago I got a teacher comment that "Stellafera makes such insightful comments in group discussions, but I wish she would talk more" and I was thrilled because it meant that I wasn't overdoing it.


That's great. I found it hard to get a balance hahaha... I sure loved to talk / not talk at all. :angry::laughing: When it comes to certain topics, I don't umm... well not everyone tends to agree.



> But I care about both! If I were to pick one of the two I'd go with the ISTJ way because you need to get stuff _done_, but I'm more likely to express this through nagging than I am through a very direct "this is what we're doing, get moving or get going" way. I'm trying to move towards a more straightforward leadership style since my nagging can be pretty annoying, though.


Where I find it hard to get along with others is if they see my standard. While I don't impose it on them, I think they consider that if I do it in this way, and they don't, then I must see them in a bad light. This is often the assumption and it leaves me feeling sad as I really do _consider_ them in the way I do things. My leadership style is slow and steady, considering their needs and feelings.  So slowwww when they're the way they are.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

I think I'm probably a Fi user since the parts I kept liking about Fe with considering the opinions of others and especially being concerned about society might be things I care about using other functions. Whereas I do relate to the "judge jury and executioner" aspects of Fi. 

If anyone else could weigh in, that would be helpful!


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> In my teens. I have ADHD (inattentive subtype), but it's well managed. Also, I suspect that my cognitive functions are on the Fe-Ti and Ne-Si axis, but feel ambigious about what's dominant. They all seem equally relevant to my thinking.


Hey. I thought to check out your questionnaire since you were interested in more opinions. 

OK starting my analysis here. If you feel Ne is as relevant to your thinking as any other function, it doesn't seem likely it's inferior Ne.





> "Why are we stoppin-oh crap. Are we going to be stranded here? Wait, of course not, we have cell phones. Wow, I feel really bad for my friend driving. He's probably going to have to pay a lot of money for that. I mean, I think so... how expensive IS this gonna be for him? There goes his saving plans. Guess we'll be late to the concert now."
> 
> My outward reaction would probably be similar. Confusion, then oh crap. I'd probably go through the cell phone thought quickly enough to not bring it up, but once the driver has stopped the car I'd probably start asking them what was wrong before they even had a chance to check it. Then if they figured it out I'd ask them in a concerned tone if it was going to be too expensive. After that conversation, I'd start asking the car in general how we plan on getting to the concert. My eyes would probably dart back to the driver here and there.


Doesn't look like ST type. But that's just a stereotype.




> *3. You somehow make it to the concert. The driver wants to go to the afterparty that was announced (and assure you they won't drink so they can drive back later). How do you feel about this party? What do you do?
> *
> If I've gotten talked into a concert, it's probably because I really like the artist or am interested in the performance. My personality's not very... partyish in general and especially not big partyish. I'm going to end up on the outskirts of the fun and want to go home, and my feelings will be intensified by the fact that I didn't plan to attend.


Introversion.




> *4. On the drive back, your friends are talking. A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward reaction? What do you outwardly say?
> *
> This happens all the time for me. My inward reaction begins with a flare of rudeness ("yeah THAT'S a stupid idea") that quickly dies down as I go into logical mode. Depending on how developed their initial claim was, I'll either ask for them to elaborate or start tossing back a few counterpoints. I don't tend to get too offended by debates even if I get vehement in my opinion.


You sound quite strong on Thinking here.




> *5. What would you do if you actually saw/experienced something that clashes with your previous beliefs, experiences, and habits?
> *
> I politely voice my objections. I don't like to antagonize people, so even if I hold strong opinions on the subject, my speaking tone is conciliatory. This makes the rare occasions where I lay down ultimatiums hit hard and unsettle people.


You remind me of my INTP friend lol, he has some strong opinions too but his way of speaking is softer. He does surprise me when he stands up in a hard way like you with your ultimatums. :laughing:

(He's LII in Socionics as well, btw.)




> *6. What are some of your most important values? How did you come about determining them? How can they change?
> *
> Work ethic. Always.
> 
> School has never easy for me despite the fact that I get good grades. I ask the teachers tons of questions and sit with my math on the weekends, trying to put it together in my head. But in the end I retain most of the information I learn and I am richer for it. Last summer I put in the time to understand how the four-stroke combustion engine worked. Cars make just a little more sense to me. The chemistry I retained from school didn't hurt with that understanding, by the way. You can apply a good work ethic to exercise, finances, anything. It improves your life and makes you a better person.


Where you say you retain most of the information sounds more S than strong N or at least not N dominant type.

You do remind me of myself where you say you try to put things together in your head.

The work ethic thing you can see as J though not decisive.




> *7a. What about your personality most distinguishes you from everyone else?
> *
> I'm very analytical. I like categorizing things into little boxes and lists and A to B logic, and when I explain my rationale behind my decisions to people, it tends to produce a "...you really thought about this" reaction. I go through TV shows, movies, etc. slowly because I'll just pick a tv show for a month or more and chew on it with reviews and fan discussions before I move onto something new.


Again, you remind me of myself. All this stuff so far showing your way of thinking... I relate a lot. In Socionics I will definitely peg you as a Ti-leading type (along with your Fe seeking clearly expressed along with Fi role in post #14). MBTI is a different animal so let's see the rest of your questionnaire. But one thing I can say, you got some Si somewhere along with the IxTx in terms of MBTI.




> More idealistic than average, too. Really trusting sort here. Breaking rules makes me feel uncomfortable on a vague skin-crawling level unless I have a plan to justify it. I'm also, however, pretty skeptical in my day-to-day life and often presume pragmatic motivations alongside emotional ones. Actually, pragmatic and emotional motivations can often be the same thing. People like satisfying their feelings.
> 
> Fairly future-oriented outlook. I'm always looking forward to planning out my life and how things will go. I also pick apart the past. The present? Well, something had to give, I suppose.


How much do you like to keep to those plans?

In Socionics, you could still go either way (LII or LSI) at this point (though leaning towards LII with overall tone and all that).




> *7b. If you could change one thing about you personality, what would it be? Why?
> *
> There's a learned helplessness to my behavior at times that I really despise. Oh no, I'm afraid I'm going to screw up sharpening this knife... oh... you... I guess you just did it for me. Go to that party? Er, I don't get how those sorts of parties work or how I'm supposed to behave. I'm not sure about this. Oh... you said it's fine for me not to come? Oh... I guess.


Still same.




> *8. How do you treat hunches or gut feelings? In what situations are they most often triggered?
> *
> My gut feelings tend to be prickly and nagging. The voice in your head. I often get them when I feel like I should be doing something different from what I am. These are usually accurate; I feel better when I obey my conscience in this way. My hunches? Not so much. Either way, I filter these feelings through a bit of mental interrogation to distill where they came from, why I thought them, and how much I should consider them. I don't see anything contradictory in the idea of sourcing my intuitions.


Sounds like you trust your Intuition. Unlike Ne inferior or whatever other Sensing type.

I'm not sure tho' if I interpreted your last sentence correctly - do you mean you are fine with the idea of sourcing intuitions?




> *9a. What activities energize you most?
> *
> Video production and photography, since they're big hobbies of mine. Achieving something I worked hard for or *jumping into something new*. The feeling after I exercise where I'm totally empowered and self-satisfied. In the moment, being with friends and joking and being on top of the world.


What sort of new? Why? I'm thinking of strong Ne again, but depends on what you meant.




> *10. What do you repress about your outward behavior or internal thought process when around others? Why?
> *
> I try to tone down my really analytical thoughts, since they often only interest myself. I also lower my vocabulary a bit around some people because I want to communicate clearly. Hold back on mean but somewhat funny thoughts I have unless I know someone well.


Stereotypical Ti-leading in Socionics.




> I swear so much less in public than I do at home. I've had a lot of religious friends where that language made them uncomfortable and it's a habit I've carried over to the present day. NOBODY believes me when I tell them I swear quite willingly at my house. I let out one "shit" and they all swivel around like deer in the headlights.


Lol you remind me of my INTP friend again.

So the verdict - I would say LII > LSI in Socionics, and INTP > ISTJ in MBTI. I don't see other types as likely.

But it would be useful to clarify more.




> It is only natural to want to make improvements but in general as Si users, if it ain't broke we most likely ain't gonna fix it. When we want to improve on things and use *our* strategy is when we use what we already know (Si) and turn it into plan (Te).


OP - Do you relate to this statement by @Weekend? Do you hardly care about doing things a different, _possibly _better, way by default or are you a bit more interested in them than that?

This is a way to tell how strong your Ne is.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Thanks for the opinions, especially on Socionics since that's proven a bit hard for me to dive into. What's different about being Ti-dominant in Socionics vs MBTI? 

What's drawn me away from INTP is the feeling-last thing. I don't relate at all to the "DON'T CONSIDER PEOPLE'S FEELINGS IF YOU WANT TO BE OBJECTIVE!!!!!" mindset that seems to be associated with that. It seems weird that I would relate so much to Fe if it's inferior for me. Ne at least has some negative associations with catastrophic thinking, even if I can also get very excited by the possibilities of the future. 

Here's how I interpret my usage of Si if you want to see how I (think I) relate to it. 



myst91 said:


> OK starting my analysis here. If you feel Ne is as relevant to your thinking as any other function, it doesn't seem likely it's inferior Ne.


I've got to have *some* sort of inferior function though, don't I?



> How much do you like to keep to those plans?


I like keeping to my plans a lot. 



> I'm not sure tho' if I interpreted your last sentence correctly - do you mean you are fine with the idea of sourcing intuitions?


Yep. 



> What sort of new? Why? I'm thinking of strong Ne again, but depends on what you meant.


Well, it's nice to have variety in your life! When I find a new hobby or the like, it gets me excited throwing myself into it. It's unexplored territory. 



> OP - Do you relate to this statement by @Weekend? Do you hardly care about doing things a different, _possibly _better, way by default or are you a bit more interested in them than that?.[


I don't have unlimited free time to find new ways of doing things, so I tend to get attached to methods I've figured out of doing things and try to stick to them. It's much easier to follow something I've already been doing, after all, especially since it's a known quantity. 

If I'm teaching myself a concept, I like to learn how to do it "properly" the first time and not take shortcuts. I fall into the slippery slope fallacy easily and assume for whatever reason that my brain won't be able to grasp a new understanding of something I've already learned. This is a tendency I've been working on curbing, though, since experience tells me I'm more flexible than that. 

However, that's not the whole story. Coming up with new methods of doing things usually gets my pride fired up. "I figured out this AWESOME technique that lets me fall asleep within the half hour of me heading to bed! I'm awesome!". It puts me in a good, optimistic mood. I like making plans for the future; it makes me excited for how I'll feel and what I'll be doing when they come to fruition. 

Ultimately, I'm neutral on this topic.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> Thanks for the opinions, especially on Socionics since that's proven a bit hard for me to dive into. What's different about being Ti-dominant in Socionics vs MBTI?


Socionics Ti has certain Judging (in the sense of Jungian Rationality) characteristics, while MBTI's doesn't.




> What's drawn me away from INTP is the feeling-last thing. I don't relate at all to the "DON'T CONSIDER PEOPLE'S FEELINGS IF YOU WANT TO BE OBJECTIVE!!!!!" mindset that seems to be associated with that. It seems weird that I would relate so much to Fe if it's inferior for me.


Hmm if you mentioned it later, I missed it sorry as I didn't have time to properly read the rest of the posts.

If you relate so much to Fe then another option may be INFJ for you in MBTI and IEI in Socionics.




> Here's how I interpret my usage of Si if you want to see how I (think I) relate to it.


One more thing that sounds a bit NiFe-ish where Ti is only third. I'm seeing nothing directly sensory being described in that post, though I don't follow all the versions of defining MBTI Si that float around on these forums. That would be impossible since they do not all work together.  I just go by, Si-dom being ISxJ, and some MBTI authors like Lenore Thomson do have a decent fleshing out of it too.




> I like keeping to my plans a lot.


Alright, more J in MBTI.




> I'm not sure tho' if I interpreted your last sentence correctly - do you mean you are fine with the idea of sourcing intuitions?
> 
> 
> > Yep.


Intuitive type.




> Well, it's nice to have variety in your life! When I find a new hobby or the like, it gets me excited throwing myself into it. It's unexplored territory.


More P-ish here but for INxx I don't find that too surprising.




> I don't have unlimited free time to find new ways of doing things, so I tend to get attached to methods I've figured out of doing things and try to stick to them. It's much easier to follow something I've already been doing, after all, especially since it's a known quantity.
> 
> If I'm teaching myself a concept, I like to learn how to do it "properly" the first time and not take shortcuts. I fall into the slippery slope fallacy easily and assume for whatever reason that my brain won't be able to grasp a new understanding of something I've already learned. This is a tendency I've been working on curbing, though, since experience tells me I'm more flexible than that.
> 
> ...


I see clear references to strong Intuition here, you like new methods and it's not the first time you mention being future oriented.


@Weekend wondered earlier on how you relate to the present: _"No, you really are considering the present. The actions for your future plans are gradually played out in the present. ISTJs are very steady in their actions"_.

OP - What would you say about this?


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

myst91 said:


> @Weekend wondered earlier on how you relate to the present: _"No, you really are considering the present. The actions for your future plans are gradually played out in the present. ISTJs are very steady in their actions"_.
> 
> What would you say about this?


I think it was an accurate observation. I consciously think of myself as past-future oriented, but I definitely lay out my plans through my actions in the present. I mean, that's just the sensible way of doing things. Otherwise you're just making wishes. You need to be making concrete actions to bring your plans to fruition. 



> Intuitive type.


Interesting. Are you saying that a sensing type would feel like connecting hunches to the unconscious rationale behind them is breaching some sort of line?


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

About me relating to Fe, it's the fact that I completely bolded (agreed with) descriptions like this:



> *Do you feel the urge to make sure everyone is okay or on the same page? Do you feel like you naturally gauge the social “temperature” or “atmosphere” of a room as soon as you walk in? Do you feel very uneasy when others seem dissatisfied or unhappy or express negativity? Do you instinctively want to smooth over interpersonal conflicts (regardless of whether they involve you)? Are you easily annoyed when people seem inconsiderate, aloof, uncooperative, or unappreciative?* (Extraverted Feeling or Fe seeks to maintain or build interpersonal bonds and social structure in order to achieve harmony and intimate connection among people)


I don't relate to "feeling what other people are feeling", though, which seems like an important part of Fe:



Stellafera said:


> I pay attention to [other people's emotions] and consider them when forming my own emotional reaction, but I don't really feel what others are feeling in a voodoo doll way.
> 
> I express my emotions outwardly sometimes, but I usually do this by _telling_ people what I'm feeling. I'll often go "I'm excited!" or "I'm annoyed!" intellectually but not actually feel it within myself. My emotions often have a certain lack of intensity to them that I supplement by psyching myself up. _"Yeah, you should be really happy! Bounce around a bit and smile!"_


My opinions on TV shows and the like can be pretty opposite of the norm. I have tropes that I know I enjoy. For example, I'm very likely to enjoy Broken Ace, The Reliable One, Inferiority Superiority Complex, and Then Let Me Be Evil. Sitcom Arch Nemesis will get a laugh out of me, Ambition is Evil and True Art Is Angsty will piss me off, Sanity Slippage and Obsession Tropes intrigue, etc. If something hits a lot of "Stellafera Appeal Buttons", I'm probably going to enjoy it even if others hate it. If it manages to touch on my pet peeves, it'll annoy me even if it's well regarded.

-----

Took a Socionics test just now and got this as my result. I felt middling on a lot of answers; both ends of my options often appealed to me. The basic description of LIE seems to fit me noticeably better than LII but the "LIE vs LII" comparison page makes me sound a lot more like an LII.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Just hopping back to say - that post - this part - My brain replays how I read those scenes - and her explanation under -- was totally Si, which is why I liked it. I liked it and related to it so much I felt like commenting on it; I didn't because I didn't want to add anything about Ni to the thread.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

@*Stellafera* I found this really great video about Fe and Fi... and how they also relate to Ti and Te. Something about motives... if you haven't seen it before I recommend it to you! 
Fe vs Fi https://youtu.be/lgqxNkNx7Vc - watch this one first
Te vs Ti - this one will be a little different to how he's describing Te because he's Te dom and we're Te aux, with a store base of Si (you'll probably understand what I mean if you watch it) https://youtu.be/AMpiCdoqcwE


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

*Fi vs Fe Video*: _I lean Fi after watching this _

*Cross-referencing information to figure out what people feel (Fi) –* definitely more of an Fi user here

*Feeling Situations are Unique (Fe) vs Feeling Framework (Fi) – *In day-to-day life, I've concluded that it's too much work to reach a philosophical consistency in my value judgments and thus go with my gut. I feel like the ideal would be that consistency, but I also feel like my conscience makes “good' decisions regardless.

*Stretching a Truth to Fit Emotional Environment *– This makes me uncomfortable. I have to believe what I'm saying even if it's in a warped way.

*Internal Harmony (Fi) – *Makes sense, I want things to sit right with* me*. My control freak tendencies match up with his own observations on Fi and control.

*Ti vs Te Video*: _I strongly lean Ti after watching this, possibly even as a dominant function. _

*Each logic is separate, original principles don't matter (Te) - * DEFINITELY not, I seem very different from a lot of other people on this

*Ti Users Like Chaos -* lol nope

*Any incoming fact has to be cross-referenced with their framework, Relentless for finding where things fit into internal logic (Ti) -* Very true, if it doesn't fit into my brain it drives me CRAZY. When I'm trying to remember stuff in math, I will backtrack to my proofs for things if it's not sticking in my brain and will rewalk through my thought process. It can be very time consuming and I'm often 'slow' at math compared to other people. The advantage, though, is that I have a very complete understanding. :kitteh:


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

@*Stellafera* that's why I said he will describe it differently. He is Te dom. We are Te aux. Our store is Si - that's the 'logic' we keep consistent. Or the 'value' because we rely on it. We do reference it. I see Te as a quickly changing thing / environments are diff - that's why it's objective but we reference the objective environment with our subjective Si which grounds us.

If my Si is not in order I will do whatever possible to make it in order - to make sense - somewhat like Ti.

That said, Ti and Si are still very different functions at their core.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Seems like the divide for me is between whether I'm an ISTJ vs INTP. Narrows things down a bit, but those types are pretty different. :wink: I'll wait for responses back from myst91 and others.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

7b points out to me that you're not an INTP (a little indirectly and going from the first example) because Ti users like to dive into why it is, they want to know the logic behind a thing, they'll grab at things with Ne to fill in the blanks in their logic. So if an INTP didn't know something, they'd try to find out more about it - what they can do/think that is logically consistent with what they've already worked out. They'd be more willing to explore to fill in blanks in their knowledge/understanding.

Dom Si coupled with inferior Ne has a paralysing effect in the unknown / not enough info. 

Your answer to question 2 is a huge giveaway that you prefer Te over Ti.

I'll hop out now though.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Weekend said:


> Your answer to question 2 is a huge giveaway that you prefer Te over Ti.


Sorry for continuously dragging you back in here, but how so? I definitely see how my answer to 7b sounds like dom Si/inferior Ne but this is less clear to me.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Stellafera said:


> Sorry for continuously dragging you back in here, but how so? I definitely see how my answer to 7b sounds like dom Si/inferior Ne but this is less clear to me.


I edited my last post, switched to my laptop so I could clarify what I meant.

A Ti user will probably think about what exactly went wrong with the car, 'why is this happening?' Their mind will go to 'fixing it' via all the possibilities using Ne. Before you thought about 'what was wrong', you already mentioned plans and savings. Your concern is on their savings.

I don't mind answering questions or clarifying, I just didn't want to interfere too much with what myst91 is working out.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Weekend said:


> I edited my last post, switched to my laptop so I could clarify what I meant.
> 
> A Ti user will probably think about what exactly went wrong with the car, their mind will go to 'fixing it'. Before you thought about 'what was wrong', you already mentioned plans and savings. Your concern is on their savings.
> 
> I don't mind answering questions or clarifying, I just didn't want to interfere too much with what myst91 is working out.


So, basically, Te focuses more on the immediate, practical "what's wrong" (that the driver's going to have to fix it and thus will have to dig into their savings or time), whereas Ti is more interested in the "what's wrong" that the Ti user would have to figure out themselves (the problem with the car)?

In that sense, I can see myself using Te in more everyday contexts when I'm not teaching myself something. There's still the aspect of comparing external information with what makes sense to me, but that seems more of a trait of introvert-leading functions in general than Si or Ti specifically.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Stellafera said:


> So, basically, Te focuses more on the immediate, practical "what's wrong" (that the driver's going to have to fix it and thus will have to dig into their savings or time), whereas Ti is more interested in the "what's wrong" that the Ti user would have to figure out themselves (the problem with the car)?
> 
> In that sense, I can see myself using Te in more everyday contexts when I'm not teaching myself something. There's still the aspect of comparing external information with what makes sense to me, but that seems more of a trait of introvert-leading functions in general than Si or Ti specifically.


I edited that post for clarification.

It can go both ways. If the ISTJ already had knowledge on how cars work (Si), they would go straight to fixing the problem (Te relying on Si). But, if they don't have the knowledge (Si), they will automatically be thinking about other direct things/effects - the things you thought about. It's an objective thing, changing thing, different situation; external environment. They want to plan for what's happening now or are concerned with how the current events change plans. In a sense you'd even sticky beak because Si wants to know what's going on now, what it has to change about what it's already gathered (like how you wondered about the other person's funds xD). 

Ti is interested in what's wrong because they're interested in 'why'. They have a desire for the external things to be congruent with their conclusions of the subjective logical consistencies inside of them; and if they don't have this logical consistency, they will explore this to fix or fill in the gaps. That's why they're always searching for information - in this case with INTPs, they're more interested in possibilities because of Ne. Even if they think their views are accurate, they will keep seeking and seeking to _make sure_ they are updated and accurate. They'll use Ne to explore and Ti to have pin point understanding.

An ISTP on the other hand will be more 'handy' in their use of Ti, as they will actually want to physically fix the problem (Ti-Se). I can imagine they'd also have 'a-ha' moments because of their Ni.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Stellafera said:


> There's still the aspect of comparing external information with what makes sense to me, but that seems more of a trait of introvert-leading functions in general than Si or Ti specifically.


The part that makes sense - in your case, is the use of Si. I was trying to explain to you that when we use our Te, we are comparing that objective experience - what we see - to what we already know - Si. That's why you find yourself comparing the external info with what makes sense to you - what makes sense to your dominant function. Your Te is serving Si; in order for you to arrange the external environment, your internal environment has to line up or nothing will make sense.

You are semi-correct. Think about it like this - we evaluate what's going on externally, by everything that is going on within us internally, because we are predominantly introverts. Our values are inside (we kind of 'live on the inside' / our perspective), we need things to make sense on the inside and then on the outside. So in the example of an ISTJ - they're going to try to make the outside FIT congruently with their insides; they're going to tailor their plans (Te) to fit Si and Fi.

Sorry, I'm getting repetitive and I apologise that this is convoluted.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Weekend said:


> I edited that post for clarification.
> 
> It can go both ways. If the ISTJ already had knowledge on how cars work (Si), they would go straight to fixing the problem (Te relying on Si). But, if they don't have the knowledge (Si), they will automatically be thinking about other direct things/effects - the things you thought about. It's an objective thing, changing thing, different situation; external environment. They want to plan for what's happening now or are concerned with how the current events change plans.
> 
> ...


My response to that Ti-Ne thing is "well that's not very helpful for the driver, think about something more relevant to the current situation instead of satisfying your curiosity", which I suppose is the stereotypical xSTJ viewpoint. :tongue:

On the other hand, I feel like I'd do the Ti-Ne process in other situations. Like when I think something and go "hm, where was that viewpoint derived from?" and do some mental digging. You seem to suggest that this could be auxiliary Te fitting its approach to the situation, however.

Academic stuff, I'm very concerned with making something fit my understanding, but there's not so much Ne in it. I'm focused on finding an explanation that works for me. It's helpful if that explanation works in a lot of different ways, of course; I don't like methods that only work in one context because

1. Too many things to remember (not type related)

2. I'm worried about not being able to use it in a different context (inferior Ne?)

If it's slightly more complex but more internally consistent, I'll go for it. Sometimes the internally consistent explanation is too long to commit to memory. In that case, I'll lean on mnemonic devices, but this form of memory is harder for me than one that builds on principles. I'm very skilled at history because it's all a series of events. I've got a great memory for events and concepts, which seems to match up with my understanding of Si as little movies in my mind. 

My notes tend to be almost narrative because of my event-based memory. In math, I add little bits on the side, "So we do X like this. Remember, that's because of Y, here's a summarized explanation for that. Alright, next part!". Helps a lot to write for a presumed me-from-the-future who kind of forgot all this and wants to be able to get back into the mental groove of understanding when she returns.

People say that my brain works differently from "normal", and not in a mental health/neurological context. The way I approach problems doesn't quite match up with how many others do; with ISTJ being described as so common, it seems like it'd be easier for other people to understand. But maybe Si has a level of individuality to it that offsets the mundanity of the type. Or there's something else not type-related that's unusual. Or I'm not an ISTJ. Not sure.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Great response.


Stellafera said:


> My response to that Ti-Ne thing is "well that's not very helpful for the driver, think about something more relevant to the current situation instead of satisfying your curiosity", which I suppose is the stereotypical xSTJ viewpoint. :tongue:


Hahaha yes! Honestly that's what I think when any INTP or ENTP does this; in hindsight I know why they do it.



> On the other hand, I feel like I'd do the Ti-Ne process in other situations. Like when I think something and go "hm, where was that viewpoint derived from?" and do some mental digging. You seem to suggest that this could be auxiliary Te fitting its approach to the situation, however.


That's interesting, I can see where you're coming from. My memory is a bit scratchy here but maybe I do that in terms of it being derived from something in the sense of... 'have I seen this before???' But in all honesty it could just be straight up Ti-Ne; I'm just less conscious of using it. I think in general situations I'm more likely to pull reasoning from Fi, if not from Si. Like with INTPs and ENTPs I go straight to, why on earth would they want to do that??? It's so complicated, why can't they just make things simple? That's my Fi speaking to me. Well, I guess it's all my functions in their respective positions speaking to me.:laughing:



> Academic stuff, I'm very concerned with making something fit my understanding, but there's not so much Ne in it. I'm focused on finding an explanation that works for me. It's helpful if that explanation works in a lot of different ways, of course; I don't like methods that only work in one context because
> 
> 1. Too many things to remember (not type related)
> 
> ...


Yes! That's how I work too. Except I personally exchange the word principles for understanding. That's just the vocab I use.

As for referencing/notes, yep!!! I use my Ne to my advantage here, to make creative ways for me to understand things so that it can fit into my Si storage - to 'refit' 'reawaken' at a later date - I know I'll forget things so I always make quick references with little tidbits/maps of how I got there.

Yeah, I hear that ISTJs are so common yet I don't even think I've met one (face-to-face). -_- At least not in my adult life -- at least not one I've directly interacted with.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> I think it was an accurate observation. I consciously think of myself as past-future oriented, but I definitely lay out my plans through my actions in the present. I mean, that's just the sensible way of doing things. Otherwise you're just making wishes. You need to be making concrete actions to bring your plans to fruition.


So you wouldn't say you're much of a daydreamer?




> Interesting. Are you saying that a sensing type would feel like connecting hunches to the unconscious rationale behind them is breaching some sort of line?


Yes, to me relying this much on intuitive stuff would be weird.




Stellafera said:


> About me relating to Fe, it's the fact that I completely bolded (agreed with) descriptions like this:
> 
> I don't relate to "feeling what other people are feeling", though, which seems like an important part of Fe


Well that can still fit INTP then. Dunno, a somewhat more emotionally sensitive variant? Do you have a hard time getting involved with what others feel?




> Took a Socionics test just now and got this as my result. I felt middling on a lot of answers; both ends of my options often appealed to me. The basic description of LIE seems to fit me noticeably better than LII but the "LIE vs LII" comparison page makes me sound a lot more like an LII.


That answer 2) being discussed atm, is pretty much opposite of what an LIE would do. So I'm curious, what fits you better in LIE description compared to LII description?




> Feeling Situations are Unique (Fe) vs Feeling Framework (Fi) – In day-to-day life, I've concluded that it's too much work to reach a philosophical consistency in my value judgments and thus go with my gut. I feel like the ideal would be that consistency, but I also feel like my conscience makes “good' decisions regardless.


I have a simple base framework for this and I refine it over time. It's not really very philosophical tho' :laughing:




> *Any incoming fact has to be cross-referenced with their framework, Relentless for finding where things fit into internal logic (Ti) -* Very true, if it doesn't fit into my brain it drives me CRAZY. When I'm trying to remember stuff in math, I will backtrack to my proofs for things if it's not sticking in my brain and will rewalk through my thought process. It can be very time consuming and I'm often 'slow' at math compared to other people. The advantage, though, is that I have a very complete understanding. :kitteh:


So you like to be thorough with the understanding - I relate to that btw. I'm not sure what the slowness indicates. (Not questioning your intelligence here, just in terms of type.)




Weekend said:


> I edited my last post, switched to my laptop so I could clarify what I meant.
> 
> A Ti user will probably think about what exactly went wrong with the car, 'why is this happening?' Their mind will go to 'fixing it' via all the possibilities using Ne. Before you thought about 'what was wrong', you already mentioned plans and savings. Your concern is on their savings.
> 
> I don't mind answering questions or clarifying, I just didn't want to interfere too much with what myst91 is working out.


Oh it's fine if you post too 

That answer to me didn't seem strong Te or Te with S but it's hard to tell for sure from just a few lines. This is me but I wouldn't think of the saving plans going to shit right away until I had more facts on the situation. I'm not really one to guess and jump to future possibilities without facts first.




Weekend said:


> Just hopping back to say - that post - this part - My brain replays how I read those scenes - and her explanation under -- was totally Si, which is why I liked it. I liked it and related to it so much I felt like commenting on it; I didn't because I didn't want to add anything about Ni to the thread.


OK, I just don't see memory recall as specific to Si. Every function has memory. Seems like a basic functioning of the brain really.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

myst91 said:


> So you wouldn't say you're much of a daydreamer?


Nah, I daydream a lot, especially when I'm trying to sleep. It's a good way to pass the time.

Some of my daydreaming is about outright fictional stuff. This idle worldbuilding usually turns into an equally idle (but usually unfulfilled) desire to actually write out my ideas; I will work on mentally "filling in" the plot and events for the characters and settings I come up. If it's about my future, I'm trying to make steps to make my imagination come to light. In those cases, I daydream about the end of the tunnel; what it'll be like when I'm finally doing X. Alternatively, I might be thinking of "what if" scenarios. In these cases, I will often start asking myself if I'd enjoy that "what if", what it says about my personality, etc. 



> Dunno, a somewhat more emotionally sensitive variant? Do you have a hard time getting involved with what others feel?


Yeah. Since I'm more of an enneagram person I tend to associate it with being Sx-last, but maybe it has to do with MBTI too. When other people express strong emotions I can feel kind of awkward. 





_basically_​


> That answer 2) being discussed atm, is pretty much opposite of what an LIE would do. So I'm curious, what fits you better in LIE description compared to LII description?


I'm very focused on utility and my plans. These parts are pretty relatable:



> At his best, the LIE is a visionary leader who understands the the big picture as well as the risks and rewards of every decision. At his worst, the LIE can become so focused on the future and the bottom line that he loses touch with the present and his personal relationships.





> LIEs are impelled to accumulate and contribute useful, productive, and relevant information. They may accumulate such factual knowledge in matters they find useful, either because it's their professional field, or something they find interesting and of potential use in the future. They typically carry the belief that in order to function at optimal level and maintain an element of control over their experience, they need to know and make sense of how their external environment works.
> 
> LIEs are constantly searching for and involving themselves in practical projects and other avenues of applying their knowledge, and are typically comfortable with asserting their knowledge, correcting factual inaccuracies of others, and generally offering information that can be applied to productive purposes. LIEs generally are highly pragmatic, assiduous, and proactive individuals. They often feel uncomfortable and restless if they are not able to pursue their own productive ventures and goals.


The LII description didn't seem very... practically focused:



> At the same time, LIIs are often minimally interested in real-world application of their ideas, instead preferring abstract and theoretical speculation.





> LIIs usually have little interest in thinking of or implementing practical applications for their ideas. They usually display little interest in how the ideas or structures they produce relate to the outside world; instead, they tend to focus primarily on furthering, building upon, and exploring the implications of their internal systems. They may also tend to have little spontaneous inclination to conceptualize situations in terms of efficiency, expenditure of resources, or pragmatic concerns; instead, they may focus more extensively on philosophical or rational principles and structured codes of living -- though many LIIs are not so austere.


Also, I work hard to understand math and the like, but it takes me time and mental energy to wrap my brain around. It's not innate for me at all. What's innate for me is something like photography or English. Seeing the visual/the passage and determining how the components affect me. How does the lighting create mood for the photo? How does the syntax of the paragraph create a sense of pacing? These are things I have a real knack for.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Not to interrupt but the OP is so lucky. What's better than one ISTJ helping you understand yourself? Three ISTJ helping you understand yourself. :kitteh: 

Grats to the lovely hardworking ISTJs @Weekend @Stellafera and @myst91 ! :kitteh:


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

myst91 said:


> OK, I just don't see memory recall as specific to Si. Every function has memory. Seems like a basic functioning of the brain really.


I am also not inclined to say that memory recall is specific to Si. The differential factor I picked up on was when she stated _how_ she _replayed_ the scenes. "My brain replays how I read those scenes" - It's very typical for Si users to make note of the order, in detail (the information they pick up). 

With the way she picked it up, she noted it was similar to the way she picked up the other thing. Here, a 'snapshot' of what had happened before was triggered in her memory because she'd taken another snapshot that also relates to it. I gather the snapshot part from where she said, "My mental image..." 

Now she does state that this is traditionally a symbolic connection; I don't doubt that. But we also need to take into mind that she _compared_ the present snapshot to a snapshot in the past, that's something Si is known for. It's the way she went on about the whole thing to even take a snapshot in the first place, "I get attached to these little visual or auditory bits and use them as a reference. Or smell, or whatever. I can play them in my head like little movies."

There can't be anything missing in the order of a _particular_ snapshot/framework or they won't '_get'_ it / struggle to get it - it eats away at them till they figure it out or they may disregard the whole thing in frustration. 

Normal memory can't get 'annoyed' at these things; it takes things as they are. If something is blank, meh, it's just a memory, it's just a 'happening'. When we take things in with Si, things need to fit together to be relied upon. I'm not trying to say that Si is a judging function, just that when something is off, something is different, something doesn't quite make sense, it triggers us to whatever that problem may be; this emphasises the need to see and take in the information presented to us, in a certain way.




> That answer to me didn't seem strong Te or Te with S but it's hard to tell for sure from just a few lines. This is me but I wouldn't think of the saving plans going to shit right away until I had more facts on the situation. I'm not really one to guess and jump to future possibilities without facts first.


Tbh I think that's why they even asked that question in the first place - to figure out how the types think, or if they prefer thinking or feeling. It gives an okay insight to their minds but yeah, it can be hard to tell at times. I generally zoom out of the picture after I've read all the answers so I can see how all the answers fit into a type, or whether they don't fit at all!

I understand what you're saying about the savings. For me it's just something I jump to because I don't understand the inner workings of cars. I jump to things I think about in day-to-day life or things I relate to; savings is just one of them. In this particular case I don't see it as jumping to future possibilities or conclusions without facts. To me it seems, if I can't fix it _and if no one else_ there knows how to fix it, someone is _most likely_ going to pay for something to happen.


--
Perhaps I shouldn't have said snapshot when she described it as little movies. I guess you could think of it as a reel.


----------



## floatingpoint (Dec 30, 2015)

I agree that you're most likely an ISTJ! There were several points in your response to the questionaire when I thought, 'whoa, that seems very Ti,' but of course Si+Te working in tandem can create a very Ti-like effect. 

Also, one of my best friends is an ISTJ, and you remind me of her a lot. ISTJs are much more compassionate and thoughtful about others than most people suspect, they're just not particularly warm from the outset. But their feelings and values really impact their lives. 

Also, I think the corollary between ISTJs and enneagram 6 is very high. Interesting that you're a 6w7 so/sp, I've never met one before! It makes sense, then, that you considered ISFJ, since you're social variant.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> Nah, I daydream a lot, especially when I'm trying to sleep. It's a good way to pass the time.
> 
> Some of my daydreaming is about outright fictional stuff. This idle worldbuilding usually turns into an equally idle (but usually unfulfilled) desire to actually write out my ideas; I will work on mentally "filling in" the plot and events for the characters and settings I come up. If it's about my future, I'm trying to make steps to make my imagination come to light. In those cases, I daydream about the end of the tunnel; what it'll be like when I'm finally doing X. Alternatively, I might be thinking of "what if" scenarios. In these cases, I will often start asking myself if I'd enjoy that "what if", what it says about my personality, etc.


Would you say you are good at figuring out those concrete steps then? This is what I was getting at with my earlier question too, sorry, this should be clearer now 




> Yeah. Since I'm more of an enneagram person I tend to associate it with being Sx-last, but maybe it has to do with MBTI too. When other people express strong emotions I can feel kind of awkward.


Do you never get used to it over time if you spend time with that person?




> I'm very focused on utility and my plans. These parts are pretty relatable:
> 
> The LII description didn't seem very... practically focused:


Hmm, what if you compare LIE to LSI, ESI and LSE?




> Also, I work hard to understand math and the like, but it takes me time and mental energy to wrap my brain around. It's not innate for me at all. What's innate for me is something like photography or English. Seeing the visual/the passage and determining how the components affect me. How does the lighting create mood for the photo? How does the syntax of the paragraph create a sense of pacing? These are things I have a real knack for.


Interesting, I'll keep this in mind too.




Weekend said:


> I am also not inclined to say that memory recall is specific to Si. The differential factor I picked up on was when she stated _how_ she _replayed_ the scenes. "My brain replays how I read those scenes" - It's very typical for Si users to make note of the order, in detail (the information they pick up).


OK, I get what you mean now, about the detail orientation.




> With the way she picked it up, she noted it was similar to the way she picked up the other thing. Here, a 'snapshot' of what had happened before was triggered in her memory because she'd taken another snapshot that also relates to it. I gather the snapshot part from where she said, "My mental image..."
> 
> Now she does state that this is traditionally a symbolic connection; I don't doubt that. But we also need to take into mind that she _compared_ the present snapshot to a snapshot in the past, that's something Si is known for. It's the way she went on about the whole thing to even take a snapshot in the first place, "I get attached to these little visual or auditory bits and use them as a reference. Or smell, or whatever. I can play them in my head like little movies."


I noted other people have these movies too, so I'm hesitant to relate purely that part to type.




> There can't be anything missing in the order of a _particular_ snapshot/framework or they won't '_get'_ it / struggle to get it - it eats away at them till they figure it out or they may disregard the whole thing in frustration.
> 
> Normal memory can't get 'annoyed' at these things; it takes things as they are. If something is blank, meh, it's just a memory, it's just a 'happening'. When we take things in with Si, things need to fit together to be relied upon. I'm not trying to say that Si is a judging function, just that when something is off, something is different, something doesn't quite make sense, it triggers us to whatever that problem may be; this emphasises the need to see and take in the information presented to us, in a certain way.


Sure, things need to fit together.




> I understand what you're saying about the savings. For me it's just something I jump to because I don't understand the inner workings of cars. I jump to things I think about in day-to-day life or things I relate to; savings is just one of them. In this particular case I don't see it as jumping to future possibilities or conclusions without facts. To me it seems, if I can't fix it _and if no one else_ there knows how to fix it, someone is _most likely_ going to pay for something to happen.


I don't know in detail how cars work either, I just go by general understanding and experience about just how likely it would be for a car that stops like that to be so expensive to fix. It also depends on what these saving plans are like. Etc. All in all, based on all these factors, I would not immediately think that this _must _be a real disaster.  I would want to get to know more detail before I really think about such conclusions. Until then, not warranted.

My ISFJ mom does start to panic in such cases tho'. I always attributed the difference between us to how she focuses less on the Thinking side of things.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

@myst91 I've been getting a clearer understanding of how I take in information now. I thought I'd just mention it since I mentioned part of it above. I don't mean to drag it on or anything, just thought to share it! 

I realised that even though I need to be present - like physically there, to observe things, I take it in in a very subjective way. I've heard people say this before and I thought I was just taking in "facts", etc. But I heard someone say that Si types like photographs so that they can relive that moment. I've always disliked photos because I've favoured my memory over it. I feel like I experience it in such a lovely way that when I look at a picture that's been captured, I'm totally disappointed. Now I realise why; the way I see/view things is so subjective and I hold on to that so dear, that when I see my reality from another viewpoint, it puts me off. I feel like nothing can capture something the way that I do when I experience it first-hand.

Something else that drives home the whole point of subjectivity is the difference between Se and Si. I came to realise that if I'm in a fast flowing and changing environment, I put so much effort into Se that I struggle to pick up information with Si; I need time to process what's going on.

Okay, that's all. :laughing:


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Weekend said:


> @myst91 I've been getting a clearer understanding of how I take in information now. I thought I'd just mention it since I mentioned part of it above. I don't mean to drag it on or anything, just thought to share it!


No worries it's cool.




> I realised that even though I need to be present - like physically there, to observe things, I take it in in a very subjective way. I've heard people say this before and I thought I was just taking in "facts", etc. But I heard someone say that Si types like photographs so that they can relive that moment. I've always disliked photos because I've favoured my memory over it. I feel like I experience it in such a lovely way that when I look at a picture that's been captured, I'm totally disappointed. Now I realise why; the way I see/view things is so subjective and I hold on to that so dear, that when I see my reality from another viewpoint, it puts me off. I feel like nothing can capture something the way that I do when I experience it first-hand.
> 
> Something else that drives home the whole point of subjectivity is the difference between Se and Si. I came to realise that if I'm in a fast flowing and changing environment, I put so much effort into Se that I struggle to pick up information with Si; I need time to process what's going on.
> 
> Okay, that's all. :laughing:


Interesting. I relate to the extra activation of Se without having time to process things, in such environments where a lot of adjusting is needed.  Otoh I don't relate to the experiencing of whatever in a "lovely way" most of the time because I'm quite emotionally detached by default.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Sorry for the late reply, comparing the Socionics types had to be divided up over multiple days. Not mad about the time expenditure at all though, it was interesting and fun. If anything I feel bad for @myst91 for the deluge of quotes I'm about to rain upon them. :tongue:

Also, I've come to the realization “Satisfied” from the musical _Hamilton_ is a pretty accurate match for my thinking style/tone. Might be helpful for a more objective perspective: 





_Stuff inside her mind begins at about 1 minute in, but the opening is pretty much essential for understanding what's going on_​
Now for questions!



floatingpoint said:


> Interesting that you're a 6w7 so/sp, I've never met one before! It makes sense, then, that you considered ISFJ, since you're social variant.


Ooh, I'm special! This is weird to me because my personal bias leads me to assume that other 6w7s are phobic little So/Sp's like I am and that 6w5s are the grumpy distrusting Sp/Sx counterphobics who are concerned about AUTHORITY and BEING PUNK and GIVING YOU MY SACRED TRUST (i.e. all the stuff in Type 6 descriptions that make me scratch my head).

I noticed a fairly high amounts of 6w5s in the ISTJ forum and a lot of So-lasts. Didn't see any other social-dominants or 6w7s, which was interesting.



myst91 said:


> Would you say you are good at figuring out those concrete steps then? This is what I was getting at with my earlier question too, sorry, this should be clearer now


Well, for the fictional stuff, I can get writer's block, but otherwise yeah. The concrete steps come pretty naturally for me. 



> Do you never get used to it over time if you spend time with that person?


Not really. It's not dependent on familiarity. Overall, I'm less likely to come across as cold/emotionless and more likely to come across as distant. 

I can bounce back easily from negative emotions if I want to; if I'm staying in a bad mood, it's often because I feel like it's important for whatever reason to stay unhappy about something. For example, if I feel guilty, there'll be a period of verbal stewing (“I shouldn't have done that… I'm sorry… that was a bad idea… sorry...”) and then some time later, maybe a few minutes, maybe an hour, maybe a day, I'll come back with a plan of action to make things better. Until I figure out a way to absolve my guilt, however, I'm going to keep bringing it up in my mind. Guess it just doesn't seem right to drop it. 



> Hmm, what if you compare LIE to LSI, ESI and LSE?


*LSI *

A lot about this type fits very well indeed! I'm not so dogmatic or certain, though.

What Fits


* *






> They may typically tend to conceptualize the world around them in terms of fixed categories, and can exhibit well-developed preferences for one category of things over another. Often, LSIs' interpretation of the world is directed towards existing social structures; their rules and guidelines pertaining to the behavior and actions of others





> They are sometimes unafraid of criticizing or berating others who fail to act in accordance with their expectations (though they may be reticent to speak critically as well, as this may contradict their program of social order). In addition, LSIs can be quite proactive and can push others simply to get things done. They may feel a need to possess a certain degree of control over the situations and individuals around them, in order to ensure that their guidelines are followed appropriately.





> LSIs may have a tendency to attend to the impact, influence, or impressiveness of their creations or behaviors on the outside world. Many LSIs have a sophisticated sense of fashion or dress style -- or if not, at least the confidence that they could dress impressively if inclined to do so, or critically evaluate whether others are dressed impactfully. *pretty sure that fashion part is not type related though*





> LSIs may have difficulty processing ambiguity or uncertainty. When they are the victim of necessary ambiguity, they may have a tendency to focus on the worst-case scenario, and may attempt to expend so much effort as to be prepared for any conceivable contingency.





> LSIs can also sometimes be sticklers for minutiae in rule-based systems; they may have little sympathy or leeway for those individuals who require exemptions (along the lines of "no, sir, this bus must leave exactly at 7:30").





> LSIs, perhaps more than any other type, are reputed for their stubborn resistance to the reality of their bodies, and the nonrelevance of their physical states as compared to their own personal goals and volitions. At a socionics meeting, an LSI once walked four miles in his sandals, resulting in a badly scraped and bloody foot, and proceeded to sit through the remainder of the four-hour-long meeting before tending to it.





> LSIs may feel innately that it is their civic responsibility to enforce or ensure their desired social order, or whatever higher drive they find themselves with. Being oriented towards Ni with Fe, they may be somewhat more oriented to see their causes as collectivistic in nature, and to see the success of the collective (e.g. a nation or party) rather than the specific fortunes of individuals, as paramount -- though for intellectual rather than moral reasons, they might believe exactly the opposite. LSIs are not uncommonly involved in politics and in the process of formulating important decisions (according to Expat's typings, a disproportionate number of Roman Emperors who came to the throne by non-hereditary means were of this type) *that's a pretty good compliment*, and may be somewhat opinionated about the different existing ideologies towards an issue.





> ISTjs are better at noticing details than ENTjs. ENTjs are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than ISTjs *(i.e. I'm better at the ISTj way)*. ENTjs are more likely (than ISTjs) to use special rituals or other culturally accepted formalities when forming relationships with others *(likewise)*. ISTjs are attuned to the fact that different people might understand and interpret different concepts and terms differently. ISTjs are more often focused on their thoughts and feelings where as ENTjs are more often focused on their surroundings. ISTjs are often able to form quicker opinions of others they have just met than ENTjs. This is based on the ability of ISTjs to draw conclusions about the person based on the groups the person belongs to; ENTjs are more reluctant to make these inferences.







What Doesn't


* *






> Many LSIs give off a sense of certitude and absolution. They can quickly and easily schematize what is correct and incorrect according to the systems they are familiar with and may appear to be absolutely certain of their views, unable to represent any ambiguity in the principles that they put forward. This may take the form of stringent intellectual, political, or other viewpoints, or simply in a high degree of confidence in the principles they put forward towards the social environment around them. LSIs, moreso than any other type, are likely to have firmly unchanging views over a long period of time.





> Some LSIs may have a gritty, rugged, and gruff character. Like other beta quadra types, they may tend to have an "us vs. them" mentality (in part influenced by their tendency to think in rigid categories).





> LSIs can tend to have rigid, unchanging views that are not updated over time and not stringently evaluated in terms of their applicability in practice





> LSIs are sometimes aware of their internal sentiments and attitudes towards others, but do not always give their emotional responses much attention.





> ISTjs are more naturally comfortable with physical confrontations than ENTjs. ENTjs are more likely than ISTjs to perceive and distinguish themselves primarily through personal qualities. When ISTjs form opinions of others, these opinions are formed under the influence of their attitude towards the group to which the person belongs. To ISTjs, it is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time:, i.e., "you're either with us, or with them and against us. When working on a project, ENTjs experience more discomfort (than ISTjs) if the project does not have a clearly delineated end-goal or result *I'm more like the ENTj here*







*ESI *

A lot also fits here. Similar points of agreement, similar points of disagreement. 

What Fits


* *






> They may commonly be introspective and constantly in a state of trying to sort out the way they really feel. ESIs value their own sense of fidelity and life stability, and they may always try to treat others with fairness and decency. For ESIs, connections with others mark a predominant and over-arching life focus. They may pride themselves on their emotional sincerity, and when dealing with individuals they respect, they typically try to work out clashes through honest and forthright discussion. However, their sense of principled candor is sometimes marred by the conflicting emotions they experience.





> They can often come across as matter-of-fact and demanding in their expectations of others. *I'm pretty nice about it; I'm more likely to express disappointment than hostility. Nonetheless, I have STRONG goody-two-shoes leanings and I think without some of the anger-ridden tone that's what these descriptions are trying to convey. My moral compass is probably less flexible than many other people's. * Often, however, they may feel as though they challenge others no harder than they challenge themselves; they are often extensively self-critical and may strive hardest to live up to their own expectations for themselves.





> Though ESIs are sometimes inclined to retreat from and avoid others, they at other times are not reticent to initiate contact and engage others intimately. They often have a keen sense of style. *These SIs are rockin' the runway*





> 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. 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. 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





> ESIs often especially dislike uncertainty and have a tendency to vigilantly prepare for any and all extenuating circumstances. They may have difficulty coping with unforeseen changes or with particularly indecisive individuals, instead preferring a lifestyle of stability and continuity -- though many ESIs have developed more adaptive styles for dealing with such situations. They may feel discouraged, confused and lacking in their autonomy if they have to consider and keep track of large range of possible outcomes; instead, they may prefer a more direct and linear synopsis of what is likely to happen. In general, ESIs prefer solution-oriented, pragmatic advice and insights to abstract or theoretical material. They may have difficulty following or comprehending theoretical or associative tangents with no apparent practical basis. They are often rather straightforward and grounded in nature, and may have little interest or proficiency in dealing with overly conceptual perspectives. They may respond to many situations with the strategy of hard work and diligence, as opposed to innovative or conceptually novel modes of working.





> They may have difficulty conceptualizing what schedule, activity, or methodology they should follow in order to best meet their goals. They may have problems evaluating whether they have done enough on a particular task or whether their work was effective. ESIs are typically practically minded, and may tend to prefer explanations based in everyday common sense rather than extensive theory. They may also see little point in any endeavor that cannot be applied to their well-being in some way. They are often deeply invested in learning interesting or useful skills or concepts that may assist them in their daily life. They can sometimes dedicate themselves to improving themselves in this way very industriously, but they may be simultaneously unsure in what ways they should apply themselves; they may have difficulty discriminating between those ventures that are effective and those that are not, sometimes leading them into questionable methodological practices, e.g. alternative medicines. ESIs may feel deeply hindered and unsettled by the various tasks that they don't know how to do or areas they are unskilled at.





> ESIs are typically resolute and decisive in dealing with situations they see developing or already in front of them, but at the same time they are keen to avoid being too impulsive and taking actions they will regret later. They tend to appreciate periodically having an outside evaluation of how a situation is likely to develop in order to keep from worrying excessively.





> *Some of the points both for and against ISFjs are the same as ISTjs, so I won't repeat those* ISFjs are more likely than ENTjs to use "emotional anchors" that resonate with their internal emotional condition. These emotional anchors could be a book, a movie, a place, a song, etc. ISFjs use these anchors to strengthen their inner emotional state and thus will repeat the experience: e.g., re-reading a book, re-watching a movie, continually going back to a place to experience the emotions associated with it. When conversing, ENTjs types are inclined to communicate in the form of monologues, where each party has "its turn." Because of that they subconsciously attempt to transform a dialogue into a series of monologues. Conversely, ISFjs tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format. ENTjs are often more interested in the idea or theory of something, whereas ISFjs are more interested in the actual practice or implementation of it. ISFjs place greater value on their resources than ENTjs. For ISFjs, resources like their money, time, sleep, etc., fall into their "inner personal space," and the ISFjs will be more likely to deprioritize an interest if it starts to drain these resources too much. ISFjs pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as ISFjs having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). ISFjs are often better at solving and minimizing interpersonal problems, where as ENTjs often struggle understanding them.





What Doesn't


* *






> ESIs often have a tendency to be confrontational and may come across as unwavering and strict in their judgments and discipline. They are usually particularly oppositional towards those whom they mistrust or towards characters whose moral fortitude they are inclined to question.
> 
> ESIs may sometimes practice a variant of "tough love," challenging others towards acting in a way they feel is in their best interests. *That seems overly manipulative, although I think I've done this to a limited degree. I guess I AM confrontational in the sense that I'm forward with my criticism of others, but I don't have a lot of fire in my belly about it.*





> 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, and sometimes are instinctively be quick to judge others harshly. Similarly, they may also have difficulty forgiving others and often react coldly to those with past transgressions, or who they see as immoral or characterologically reprehensible. They may by nature adopt a standoffish, confrontational 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 see their judgmentalism as hypocritical and 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. *I'm actually quite trusting*





> ESIs can have a tendency to see issues of morals or personal character in black and white. They may often act as though viscerally certain of their moral positions and character judgments, and may be dismissive of attempts to contextualize situations ethically, instead seeing others as clearly responsible for their actions and reprehensible. *no way man, contextualizing the decisions can be really helpful, that's silly*





> Many ESIs are inclined to see themselves as morally immaculate *I'm noticing a lot of Type 1 flavor to the SI's and that 1-ish vibe seems to be what I'm rattling against. As a Type 6, I'm 'superego-y' like LSI and ESI, but the tone's off.*





> ISFjs are more vulnerable to logical manipulation than ENTjs. However ENTjs in contrast, are often more vulnerable to emotional or ethical manipulations than ISFjs. ISFjs tend to prefer using persuasion as a means of convincing others to do something, where as ENTjs prefer to use argumentation as a means of convincing others. ENTjs are often more cognizant of their outwards appearance and are thus better at presenting themselves than ISFjs. *I thought I was the fashion queen though*





*LSE*

Interesting. Seems to fit some of the gaps that I didn't like the SI's for (you'll note my enthusiastic responses to some of the “what fits” category), but has its own problems. 

What Fits


* *






> They may become restless when they have no work to focus themselves on. They can expend a great deal of effort speaking of work-related or practically-minded topics. Can provide a thorough, comprehensive, and interactively didactic treatment of their topics of expertise or interest. They may believe that a society (whether large or small) should play an active role in taking care of its members. LSEs are more likely to work with others through public channels, to rely on public instutitions, and to feel the need for social stability in their lives.





> LSEs value safety, comfort, leisure, aesthetics, and a peaceable environment. They often place a great deal of importance on free time, commodious surroundings, and familial well-being.Additionally, LSEs may seek to ensure the physical and overall well-being of their family members and loved ones, and naturally fit in to a "caregiver" role where their initiative and attentiveness to the needs of others are welcomed. *More of a mediator than a caregiver, but I take a bit of pride in it*





> LSEs usually exhibit a tendency to adhere to their own internal demands. Many LSEs recognize their leisure time as essential to their overall well-being, and may exhibit a need to fulfill certain internal obligations before other tasks are undertaken. They may fall into routines to around which organize their work and lifestyle, and can resist deviation from these routines even when they are ineffectual.





> LSEs can be somewhat apt at noticing and contributing to the emotional atmosphere of a situation. They can be cordial and welcoming, especially in familiar environments. Many LSEs also have a jovial sense of humor. Their formal style may appear somewhat naive and out of place in contexts where free emotional expression is encouraged, such as raucous parties or conversations involving gossip; LSEs may feel uneasy and uncertain interacting in these situations as well. Being grounded in the concreteness of reality, most LSEs are not deeply aware of fantasy, mysticism, symbolism, or any otherworldly esoterics.





> They may verbalize their emotional uncertainty, often behaving in an overly apologetic fashion. Their social activities are often an extension of their productive or leisure activities; they tend to build friendships by doing useful work or projects together.





> May be sometimes inclined to exhibit a rather naive trust of others whom they come across. They may ask others for feedback and possible explanations and appreciate substantial responses. LSEs in more informal situations can sometimes come across as zany, lively, and somewhat goofy. LSEs' sense of silliness often derives from their socially engaging and cordial qualities; however, their ebullience masks an underlying sense of sober responsibility. *Yes, yes, so true!*





> LSEs typically are docile and friendly individuals. They are almost entirely unconcerned with ostentatious displays of power politics or obedience. They typically try to treat everyone respectfully and create a commodious, welcoming atmosphere. They may apologize when they perceive that they have displayed excessive crudeness, though usually they have not. Occasionally LSEs may express confrontational tendencies. As a rule, however, this occurs when LSEs ability to perform useful work has been limited. *Note to LSI and ESI descriptions: this is MUCH closer to the mark. I pretty much agree with everything in this paragraph wholeheartedly.*





> When developing a plan of action or process, ESTjs tend to see themselves as "within the process"; they are immersed in it. Often because of this, they have more difficulty managing several plans at once. ESTjs are often able to form quicker opinions of others they have just met than ENTjs. This is based on the ability of ESTjs to draw conclusions about the person based on the groups the person belongs to; ENTjs are more reluctant to make these inferences. ESTjs are rmore relaxed in their natural state than ENTjs. However ESTjs will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, ESTjs demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of ESTjs. When describing their reasoning for their actions, ESTjs (more so than ENTjs) tend describe how and why they came to a certain decision, and focus less on the timing and initiation of the action *that ENTj thing comes across as so extraneous and rambling in my mind, no wonder why you said my answer to question 2 was pretty much the opposite of it*





What Doesn't


* *






> LSEs are essentially pragmatic and hands-on individuals. *the second half of that sentence* LSEs often develop a host of practical knowledge. It is not uncommon to see LSEs who are adept craftsmen and enjoy working with their hands, and they may as a matter of course accumulate information about practical tasks. LSEs may know about home or automobile maintenance, finance management, shop skills, or a wide variety of other topics. *Well, I try to learn about some of these topics, but presently I'm not really an expert (also I suck at pretty much anything mechanical). May be more of a function of my youth though.*





> LSEs are often not deeply aware of their emotional reactions towards others. LSEs are chronically uncertain about the nature and standing of their relationships with others. They are often highly out of touch with their internal feelings and are unsure of their abilities at reading the emotional dispositions of those around them.





> Many LSEs concern themselves only with what they can experience or control, and do not always attempt to expend undue energy to understand what is extraneous to their experience. LSEs internal mental worlds are often neglected. They are generally disinclined towards personal and existential reflection. They are focused on what is in front of them and might regard extensive philosophizing as confusing and secondary to their experience.





> LSEs are often not highly imaginative. They may have difficulty determining the personal qualities or potential abilities of others around them. LSEs often try to concentrate on the possible outcomes of a situation, but they tend to have difficulty generating cause-and-effect explanations for events that transpire around them, especially in the sphere of personal relations. Often the suggestions that LSEs offer seem lacking and poorly developed.





> When working on a project, ENTjs experience more discomfort (than ESTjs) if the project does not have a clearly delineated end-goal or result. When discussing work, ENTjs are more likely than ESTjs to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. ESTjs on the other hand are more likely to focus on the environment they work in, e.g., their work conditions, conveniences, commute time, etc. ENTjs tend to judge their available options by how likely the option will help them reach their goal. If a choice no longer helps ENTjs reach their goals, it will be dismissed and discontinued. On the other hand, ESTjs prefer to continue pursuing their current option, opting to adjust their ultimate goal in order to fit the current choice.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> Sorry for the late reply, comparing the Socionics types had to be divided up over multiple days. Not mad about the time expenditure at all though, it was interesting and fun. If anything I feel bad for @myst91 for the deluge of quotes I'm about to rain upon them. :tongue:


Lol no worries.




> Well, for the fictional stuff, I can get writer's block, but otherwise yeah. The concrete steps come pretty naturally for me.


Easy to execute and keep on track too?




> Not really. It's not dependent on familiarity. Overall, I'm less likely to come across as cold/emotionless and more likely to come across as distant.
> 
> I can bounce back easily from negative emotions if I want to; if I'm staying in a bad mood, it's often because I feel like it's important for whatever reason to stay unhappy about something. For example, if I feel guilty, there'll be a period of verbal stewing (“I shouldn't have done that… I'm sorry… that was a bad idea… sorry...”) and then some time later, maybe a few minutes, maybe an hour, maybe a day, I'll come back with a plan of action to make things better. Until I figure out a way to absolve my guilt, however, I'm going to keep bringing it up in my mind. Guess it just doesn't seem right to drop it.


Hmm tbh this sounds like directly Feeling based way of dealing with it. Hmm.

I skimmed those Socionics quotes, well it wasn't too clear, though it gave me some pointers. 

But in any case, don't want to jump around too much trying to guess at the relevance of each paragraph. Let's stick to basics first and determine those in the most solid way possible. Starting with dichotomies... Say, why did you think you would be S over N despite relating to the N's trust of intuitive hunches?


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Thank you for your continued help!



myst91 said:


> Easy to execute and keep on track too?


Yep.



> But in any case, don't want to jump around too much trying to guess at the relevance of each paragraph. Let's stick to basics first and determine those in the most solid way possible. Starting with dichotomies... Say, why did you think you would be S over N despite relating to the *N's trust of intuitive hunches?*


Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that:



Stellafera said:


> These are usually accurate; I feel better when I obey my conscience in this way. My hunches? Not so much.


I don't trust my intuitions at face value. Like, my sisters? They'll jump from A to C and be totally fine with missing B. I might notice A to C but I'm going to immediately backtrack and find B or otherwise I'll be uncomfortable. 

I'm also fairly practically minded in the sense that I like finding utility in things. A lot of N descriptions seem to regard usefulness as an unimportant quantity. I mean, my defintion of utility can be pretty wide; if I can notice a reference to something I've read in another book I count that as utility. However, for example, I want to work in the video production industry as an adult. Looking at schools, I got very irritated with the number of (useless) film _studies_ majors rather than film _production_ ones (which, you know, actually teach you skills that can get you a job). 

Inferior Ne makes more sense to me than inferior other stuff. I use Thinking and Feeling pretty much in tandem from my understanding, but I'm really bothered by anything that goes against plan and I'm prone to catastrophic thinking. While I'm optimistic about my future in the long term, in the short term I often see future possibilities in the sense of "what could go wrong" (might be Type 6 influence of course). I'm also not always great at generating ideas on my own; I'm more skilled with polishing other people's pitches than coming up with some myself. I like being second-in-command more than leader for this reason. Been warming up to leadership positions in recent times, though, so maybe it's just my development as a person. 

There is the possibility that I might be a Ni-dominant, though; I certainly don't identify much with Se descriptions. However, I'm not sure I really _understand_ Ni descriptions, so it might be a non-starter.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

(ignore, accidental double post)


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Oh, also, I did some mild reading on the socionics quadras. Delta (where LSE is) fits WAY more than beta and gamma. 

Beta seems to have this "rah rah, chest thump, GO TEAM" atmosphere that I feel like an outsider in. "It's us against the world!", what? Gamma... my god, I have at least two family members in this quadra. :crazy: However, for me, it's too... business executive-y? Hard-edged. Uses words like "agenda" and "scope" and "paradigm" a lot. It's not as important to be politic as it is to be right. That stuff. 

Delta's mingling-friendly-detached social atmosphere fits my natural inclinations, and the focus on pursuing your potential resonates greatly.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> Thank you for your continued help!


Np 




> I don't trust my intuitions at face value. Like, my sisters? They'll jump from A to C and be totally fine with missing B. I might notice A to C but I'm going to immediately backtrack and find B or otherwise I'll be uncomfortable.


Got an example of this?




> I'm also fairly practically minded in the sense that I like finding utility in things. A lot of N descriptions seem to regard usefulness as an unimportant quantity. I mean, my defintion of utility can be pretty wide; if I can notice a reference to something I've read in another book I count that as utility. However, for example, I want to work in the video production industry as an adult. Looking at schools, I got very irritated with the number of (useless) film _studies_ majors rather than film _production_ ones (which, you know, actually teach you skills that can get you a job).


I think anyone would agree with this sentiment. 




> Inferior Ne makes more sense to me than inferior other stuff. I use Thinking and Feeling pretty much in tandem from my understanding, but I'm really bothered by anything that goes against plan and I'm prone to catastrophic thinking. While I'm optimistic about my future in the long term, in the short term I often see future possibilities in the sense of "what could go wrong" (might be Type 6 influence of course). I'm also not always great at generating ideas on my own; I'm more skilled with polishing other people's pitches than coming up with some myself. I like being second-in-command more than leader for this reason. Been warming up to leadership positions in recent times, though, so maybe it's just my development as a person.
> 
> There is the possibility that I might be a Ni-dominant, though; I certainly don't identify much with Se descriptions. However, I'm not sure I really _understand_ Ni descriptions, so it might be a non-starter.


What are you not sure in terms of understanding Ni descriptions? It's not a "prophet function", btw, ignore that sort of stuff .




Stellafera said:


> Beta seems to have this "rah rah, chest thump, GO TEAM" atmosphere that I feel like an outsider in.


Lol that's extraversion more than something generally applicable to all Betas.




> "It's us against the world!", what? Gamma... my god, I have at least two family members in this quadra. :crazy: However, for me, it's too... business executive-y? Hard-edged. Uses words like "agenda" and "scope" and "paradigm" a lot. It's not as important to be politic as it is to be right. That stuff.
> 
> Delta's mingling-friendly-detached social atmosphere fits my natural inclinations, and the focus on pursuing your potential resonates greatly.


Would you say the certain lack of orientation to the future in Delta also fits you?


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

myst91 said:


> What are you not sure in terms of understanding Ni descriptions? It's not a "prophet function", btw, ignore that sort of stuff ..


I don't really see how it's different from Si. They both appear to rely on subjective reactions to/interpretations of experiences (which both pretty much sound like normal human thinking to be honest...). 

The reason why I leaned Si between the two is because I've never really liked the "all literature is one big story" kind of stuff that gets ascribed to Ni.



> Would you say the certain lack of orientation to the future in Delta also fits you?


I'm not sure what you mean by this, sorry. In what way does the Delta quadra have a lack of future orientation? This seems like something I overlooked.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> I don't really see how it's different from Si. They both appear to rely on subjective reactions to/interpretations of experiences (which both pretty much sound like normal human thinking to be honest...).


That's put a bit too general, yes. 




> The reason why I leaned Si between the two is because I've never really liked the "all literature is one big story" kind of stuff that gets ascribed to Ni.


Can you elaborate on this?




> I'm not sure what you mean by this, sorry. In what way does the Delta quadra have a lack of future orientation? This seems like something I overlooked.


Compared to the Ni valuing quadras Deltas really live in the present. When taken literally this is of course mostly true of the Delta STs, especially of SLI. The Delta NFs still really don't pay attention to a long term orientation like the Ni valuing quadras. This is because Ne (in Socionics) keeps options open, while Ni likes to have a path in mind for how things will develop and go by that instead.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Can you elaborate on this?


The idea of all literary themes being part of some abstract pattern seems ludicrous to me. Humans make stories in certain formats (beginning, middle, end...) because they're satisfying and feel complete in that way, but nothing so Platonic or abstract as "literature is just the manifestation of the great story of humanity" or anything like that.

*Edit:* In smaller ways I do like symbolism, especially if I feel it on an emotional level when I'm reading a book. For example, in _The Road_, the pistol seemed to have such a strong and powerful role as a lifeline for the characters that it added another layer of depth for the book. In this sense maybe I _am_ more of a Ni person, especially since the personal impression is important for me to really "see" the symbolism. 



> Compared to the Ni valuing quadras Deltas really live in the present. When taken literally this is of course mostly true of the Delta STs, especially of SLI. The Delta NFs still really don't pay attention to a long term orientation like the Ni valuing quadras. This is because Ne (in Socionics) keeps options open, while Ni likes to have a path in mind for how things will develop and go by that instead.


Then I'm not sure I really relate to _any_ of the Socionics quadras.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> The idea of all literary themes being part of some abstract pattern seems ludicrous to me. Humans make stories in certain formats (beginning, middle, end...) because they're satisfying and feel complete in that way, but nothing so Platonic or abstract as "literature is just the manifestation of the great story of humanity" or anything like that.


I agree with you on this lol.




> *Edit:* In smaller ways I do like symbolism, especially if I feel it on an emotional level when I'm reading a book. For example, in _The Road_, the pistol seemed to have such a strong and powerful role as a lifeline for the characters that it added another layer of depth for the book. In this sense maybe I _am_ more of a Ni person, especially since the personal impression is important for me to really "see" the symbolism.


Interesting about the extra layer of depth 

Yes, I wouldn't exclude Ni for you just yet, I've given a quick reread of the original questionnaire and with more info since then, this stands out more now _"I'm always looking forward to planning out my life and how things will go"_, as a very Ni statement.

It's also possible I saw Ti correctly for you, just not in the right position  But, a couple more things I'd like to ask about.


_"I'm very analytical. I like categorizing things into little boxes and lists and A to B logic, and when I explain my rationale behind my decisions to people, it tends to produce a "...you really thought about this" reaction. I go through TV shows, movies, etc. slowly because I'll just pick a tv show for a month or more and chew on it with reviews and fan discussions before I move onto something new."_ 

OK, I'd like to get a bit more clarification here again. On what types of topics do you perform this sort of analysis most readily? You mention TV shows and movies, but anything else? And what do you primarily focus on in these shows/movies, the characters, or what?

I'd also be curious to hear an example of a rationale you explained to people that surprised them in that way.


_"My gut feelings tend to be prickly and nagging. The voice in your head. I often get them when I feel like I should be doing something different from what I am. These are usually accurate; I feel better when I obey my conscience in this way. My hunches? Not so much. Either way, I filter these feelings through a bit of mental interrogation to distill where they came from, why I thought them, and how much I should consider them. I don't see anything contradictory in the idea of sourcing my intuitions."_ 

I can see some Enneagram Superego (E6, right?) influence here but I'd like to be sure I didn't misunderstand something here originally - what did you mean by: "My hunches? Not so much." Not so much what? Did you just mean not taking them at face value like your sisters do it? (Do you know their types btw?)

And, got an example of the prickly and accurate gut feeling?




> Then I'm not sure I really relate to _any_ of the Socionics quadras.


Tbh the problem with the idea of quadras is that each is made up of two Clubs (of four: NT, NF, ST, SF) that don't actually coincide but are opposites of each other (though within quadra they would be complementary enough opposites). So for example Delta is ST Club + NF Club. I think the values associated with your Ego is what you would most strongly identify with, while the other half of the quadra would seem a bit foreign, though you may be open and welcoming to it - or you could also be just completely unaware that you value that (if you don't know yourself very well yet). So it would be hard for many people to relate to one single quadra "as is" on the whole. Hope this makes sense


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

myst91 said:


> OK, I'd like to get a bit more clarification here again. On what types of topics do you perform this sort of analysis most readily? You mention TV shows and movies, but anything else? And what do you primarily focus on in these shows/movies, the characters, or what?
> 
> I'd also be curious to hear an example of a rationale you explained to people that surprised them in that way.


Any sort of media, really, and my opinions relating to it. I enjoy unpacking how elements of a work created the overall effect; 

_"I like this character because their overwhelming sense of responsibility created interesting story situations. You can see the focus on responsibility with lines like ________ on page __, where the phrasing subtly hints at ____..."
_
When evaluating between different courses of actions, I create heavy heavy pro-con lists in my mind and long justifications for them.

_"I took route ___ because I saw somewhat heavy traffic coming down the other way and it was morning and I wanted to do an easier straight shot to my destination and it outweighed the speed benefits especially because some construction on there would've made it harder for me to figure out where I was and I didn't want to deal with something new that day..." _

Human relationships are another big one. I notice how people interact and fit together and what those interactions hinge on and are influenced by. 

_"There seems to be a resentment between these guys. Person A probably dislikes Person B because A likes positivity and B is visibly unhappy much of the time. But really they're similar in a way because they're both prone to an underlying level of anger about events that they'll freely talk about in private but grit their teeth about in public. It's funny how people who are very similar in their flaws often rub shoulders the most."_

It's hard for me to think of a specific example for your last question. The phenomenon sticks better in my brain than any particular instance.

If I were to say something that was on my mind while reading your post, it's that I noticed that you used a lot of smiley faces. Maybe you made the post in a cheery mood or finished writing something bubbly right before, I dunno. Or perhaps it's an ameliorating effect on parts that you deem too serious or stern or the like. You also pop up more on weekdays; probably related to your work schedule?

this is making me feel like a pretentious Sherlock wannabe ahhh



> I can see some Enneagram Superego (E6, right?) influence here but I'd like to be sure I didn't misunderstand something here originally - what did you mean by: "My hunches? Not so much." Not so much what? Did you just mean not taking them at face value like your sisters do it? (Do you know their types btw?)
> 
> And, got an example of the prickly and accurate gut feeling?


Think one of my sisters is Thinking-dominant and the other seems like some sort of ExFP. And yeah, I don't take my hunches at face value. Might be because I'm introverted, though; in general it seems like extroverted functions involve less "let me take this inside my head and examine it..." action. 

I used to have a nagging feeling of guilt about not exercising enough. Then I started exercising and I don't feel guilty anymore. Kind of a no-brainer, but I used to try to talk myself into all sorts of ways to feel less bad about it.  I also can have a creeping gut feeling if I'm noticing a pattern in a concept I'm learning or an event happening in front of me, but I file that under "normal human thinking process".


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> Any sort of media, really, and my opinions relating to it. I enjoy unpacking how elements of a work created the overall effect;
> 
> _"I like this character because their overwhelming sense of responsibility created interesting story situations. You can see the focus on responsibility with lines like ________ on page __, where the phrasing subtly hints at ____..."
> _


OK that example requires reading between the lines that I think NFs are more apt to do 




> When evaluating between different courses of actions, I create heavy heavy pro-con lists in my mind and long justifications for them.
> 
> _"I took route ___ because I saw somewhat heavy traffic coming down the other way and it was morning and I wanted to do an easier straight shot to my destination and it outweighed the speed benefits especially because some construction on there would've made it harder for me to figure out where I was and I didn't want to deal with something new that day..." _


I easily reason this way too but I don't like to spend much time on doing the evaluation - I want to get moving fast. This is some piece of Thinking here in any case. 




> Human relationships are another big one. I notice how people interact and fit together and what those interactions hinge on and are influenced by.


That's a topic where strong Feeling helps a lot and perhaps Intuition as well. 




> _"There seems to be a resentment between these guys. Person A probably dislikes Person B because A likes positivity and B is visibly unhappy much of the time. But really they're similar in a way because they're both prone to an underlying level of anger about events that they'll freely talk about in private but grit their teeth about in public. It's funny how people who are very similar in their flaws often rub shoulders the most."_


A lot of reading in between the lines that NF types do the most easily.




> It's hard for me to think of a specific example for your last question. The phenomenon sticks better in my brain than any particular instance.
> 
> If I were to say something that was on my mind while reading your post, it's that I noticed that you used a lot of smiley faces. Maybe you made the post in a cheery mood or finished writing something bubbly right before, I dunno. Or perhaps it's an ameliorating effect on parts that you deem too serious or stern or the like. You also pop up more on weekdays; probably related to your work schedule?
> 
> this is making me feel like a pretentious Sherlock wannabe ahhh


Haha. OK, things like this show it even clearer that you easily speculate in the Intuitive way. You are also focusing on feelings. So, pretty NF.

Dunno why I was making the smiley faces, I guess I was in a good mood or at least not in a bad one but I don't think I was really focused on that or on the reason for it. I wasn't deliberate with trying to seem less serious or anything.

And I guess this time I broke the pattern of timing of my posts. 




> I used to have a nagging feeling of guilt about not exercising enough. Then I started exercising and I don't feel guilty anymore. Kind of a no-brainer, but I used to try to talk myself into all sorts of ways to feel less bad about it.  I also can have a creeping gut feeling if I'm noticing a pattern in a concept I'm learning or an event happening in front of me, but I file that under "normal human thinking process".


The creeping gut feeling thingy isn't familiar to me :shocked:


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

So, my understanding is that you're leaning towards an INFJ conclusion? Hm, it doesn't seem completely implausible. In fact, it rather seems... likely. :shocked: I think I'll remove ISTJ as my type since you're definitely planting the seed of doubt here. Maybe I just relate to the ISTJ _stereotypes _more. 

*Any newcomers to the thread: do I seem more like an intuitive or a sensor? 
*


myst91 said:


> The creeping gut feeling thingy isn't familiar to me :shocked:


You don't ever go "hey... that thing looks kind of like the other thing..." and you tilt your head and ask somebody if your assumption is true?


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Stellafera said:


> *Any newcomers to the thread: do I seem more like an intuitive or a sensor?
> *


Hi, just thought I'd check in again and I'm glad I did. Try answering this question:

Which would you rather prefer? An instruction manual on how to do your work and proper behavior and protocol for conduct or would you prefer to spend the day imaging a spectacular vision of your desire, then hope that it will come true?


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Hi, just thought I'd check in again and I'm glad I did. Try answering this question:
> 
> Which would you rather prefer? An instruction manual on how to do your work and proper behavior and protocol for conduct or would you prefer to spend the day imaging a spectacular vision of your desire, then hope that it will come true?


Heading to bed after this, but:

Hard to pick, both are very appealing. I guess since I already spend a ton of time imagining my future/what I want, I'd rather have the first. I've always had an underlying wish that I could just have an instruction manual to all the problems life throws at me, though I think that that sentiment is VERY MUCH influenced by my enneagram type (it's basically half of the Type 6 description).


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Stellafera said:


> Heading to bed after this, but:
> 
> Hard to pick, both are very appealing. I guess since I already spend a ton of time imagining my future/what I want, I'd rather have the first. I've always had an underlying wish that I could just have an instruction manual to all the problems life throws at me, though I think that that sentiment is VERY MUCH influenced by my enneagram type (it's basically half of the Type 6 description).


Yes, 6s are all very lovely people.

How do you spend time imagining your future/what you want? Also, why do you frequently wish you had instruction manuals to all of life's problems? Good night and answer this at your convenience.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Stellafera said:


> So, my understanding is that you're leaning towards an INFJ conclusion? Hm, it doesn't seem completely implausible. In fact, it rather seems... likely. :shocked: I think I'll remove ISTJ as my type since you're definitely planting the seed of doubt here. Maybe I just relate to the ISTJ _stereotypes _more.


Yes I'm leaning towards that.  I hope it helps.

As for the ISTJ stuff. The E6ish stereotypes or which ones in particular?




> You don't ever go "hey... that thing looks kind of like the other thing..." and you tilt your head and ask somebody if your assumption is true?


I don't really relate to this in this way, no. I'd prefer analyzing it out concretely rather than trying to make jumps like that.




Scoobyscoob said:


> Which would you rather prefer? An instruction manual on how to do your work and proper behavior and protocol for conduct or would you prefer to spend the day imaging a spectacular vision of your desire, then hope that it will come true?


Err, the ISTJ one is terribly black and white stereotyping without understanding the actual way of thinking of the type itself... There are a few MBTI authors who had a decent attempt at describing it, also ISTJs on this forum described it even better.




Stellafera said:


> Hard to pick, both are very appealing. I guess since I already spend a ton of time imagining my future/what I want, I'd rather have the first. I've always had an underlying wish that I could just have an instruction manual to all the problems life throws at me, though I think that that sentiment is VERY MUCH influenced by my enneagram type (it's basically half of the Type 6 description).


Then that sounds like you naturally prefer to focus on the future. Which is in line with what you've said in your questionnaire too. I'm also curious why you'd like to have the instruction manuals other than the type 6 stuff.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

myst91 said:


> Err, the ISTJ one is terribly black and white stereotyping without understanding the actual way of thinking of the type itself... There are a few MBTI authors who had a decent attempt at describing it, also ISTJs on this forum described it even better.


That was on purpose, to make the distinction between ISTJ and INFJ crystal clear. MBTI Si descriptions are rather poor and vague as many ISTJ are in reality LSI within Socionics. So I made the distinction purposely polar opposites. If everyone were being honest, I don't think an ISTJ could ever mistake themselves for INFJ and vice versa. Unless of course there were many stressors that made a person engage their non-dominant functions.


----------

