# Socionics and entertainment



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

So, I noticed(must be very hard) the trend in discussing entertainment and how it fits with a certain quadra. So it got me thinking:

Which function is the most important when evaluating such things? Is it the first one? Or the suggestive? Maybe the max enjoyment is achieved when both are present?

Because, sometimes you see people who don't like something that they should as per their type. And that lead me to the conclussion that while that form of entertainment might very well be rich in the primary function, it could be severely lacking in the suggestive, so an onlooker loses interest. Watching something of your own primary function is like looking at your own fantasy-which is...not unusual enough.

So which is it?

(this is not only about TV. this is about entertainment as a whole)


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

I think not liking something that supposed to go within your quadra is more of a personal preference thing. Such as, music or TV show genre, disinterest in certain themes, people, styles and so on. It is more unnerving for me when valued elements of the opposing quadra are protruded (like in those Tarantino movies, ough).

Overall, when the character or show is replete with both ego functions - it is really easy to relate and understand; they kind of give you the feeling 'hell, yeah, that's how it supposed to be'. If separate base only... (though I can't recall any Si heavy shows, that I liked, haha), guess it's important for it not to be paired too much with one's vulnerable. Entertainment that provides information on creative function primarily is safer in this regard actually - less chances to come across your PoLR and gives the necessary amount of relatedness.

Shows abound with suggestive are fascinating. I'm eager to swallow them in enormous portions and never seem to get tired of.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

So...

The best = ego functions(preferaly primary) + suggestive. Just as I thought.

Seeing how you're my dual, you'll understand the difficult task of finding both Ne and Si things. Ehhh... lol.

How would the sixth influence entertainment? edit: How would Si entertainment even look? Cooking? Documentaries? I have almost no idea.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Ixim said:


> The best = ego functions(preferaly primary) + suggestive. Just as I thought.


Yeah, that would be ideal, but "eather...or" can also be really good. Eather way, it's not easy to find the full set that would also match individual preferences.


> How would the sixth influence entertainment?


Guess in a similar way to suggestive. It's the same "I want" block and information should be accepted positively, but I noticed that too much of it isn't welcomed. Like, Fi driven shows are great, but when this element is presented in excess, they can seem boring, irritating or lacking something without support of other valued functions.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

It just occured to me! Idk how it took so long tbh...

Would Tolkien himself be an example of Ne Si stuff? I mean, it is fantasy(Ne) and it has an awful lot of Si stuff(food descriptions, a lot of serious/turn of an age stuff etc). I am talking about the books not about the PJ movies(which although good, can't even begin to compare to the masterpiece that LoTR is).


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Fantasy is now associated with Ne? Sauce.

LOTR was a pretty alright book. Overrated, especially the Tom Bombadil nonsense, but still. Not so bad. It could have been Twilight...


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Could be. Ne is strongly tied to imagination last I checked.

Yeah Bombadil was just...lol. Doesn't fit at all in LoTR. It'd have been better as a part of "the Hobbit".


----------



## somnuvore (Sep 27, 2013)

Ixim said:


> Could be. Ne is strongly tied to imagination last I checked.
> 
> Yeah Bombadil was just...lol. Doesn't fit at all in LoTR. It'd have been better as a part of "the Hobbit".


Ni is tied with imagination, Ne with potential:



> Ni is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects.





> Ne is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others.


I don't remember who says this, I'm pretty sure Stephen King (ILI I believe) has at some point; he says writing is putting the movie in your mind on paper. This correlates with Ni's description of conjuring mental imagery and seeing how events lead into each other. Maybe this is not how all writers operate but it is consistent with my experience in fiction writing.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

I realised that after I wrote that. Eh...

What can you do?

Perhaps it is why I can conjure a whole story in my mind, but can't even begin to put in on paper(or on word or whatever).


----------

