# Dimensionality of functions and IEs



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

nichya said:


> And having a ridiculous Ne, I found it extremely difficult trying to suppress my giggles because a million funny silly ideas were rushing to my mind XD
> 
> 
> Never again.


That sounds like the guy who sat next to me in the meditation hall: While I was going through ten kinds of existential crises, he was imagining humorous talking cats. We were sitting for 11 hours for initiation, and my mind was being torn to shreds. All, the while, this bitch next to me is thinking about cats.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Army Man said:


> Hey, I completely relate to the descriptions of Ni you gave. I think me being an SJ was a mistype now.


Exactly which parts of the Ni description?


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Exactly which parts of the Ni description?


In the very first post:


> *Ni*: the focus on or the control of temporal processes
> 
> -> Overexcited: "By the clock", that is extreme attention to time
> -> Underexcited: "Where's the rush", that is extreme inattention to time
> ...


----------



## RubiksCubix (Oct 29, 2014)

nichya said:


> And having a ridiculous Ne, I found it extremely difficult trying to suppress my giggles because a million funny silly ideas were rushing to my mind XD
> 
> 
> Never again.


INFP's do that. It's pretty cute. Especially when you know they're thinking naughty or controversial things and yet they keep tight-lipped about it.


----------



## RubiksCubix (Oct 29, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> Se I guess is more about human trigger points. What make you horny, what make you hungry. etc. Also they are known to always be living in the present moment,


Sort of. I tend to thing of information as _passing through_ Se and then awakening desires in the introverted functions (Fi- intimacy, etc.)


----------



## RubiksCubix (Oct 29, 2014)

Distortions said:


> What does this even mean


Ni often is chaotic, and takes upon a direct and life of its own. From my experience, anyway.

Ne users _seem_ to be able to channel their mental energy very effectively.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

RubiksCubix said:


> Sort of. I tend to thing of information as _passing through_ Se and then awakening desires in the introverted functions (Fi- intimacy, etc.)


Interesting. i see Se and Ni more action-reaction, making that into information and communicating it. Ne Si is attention/steering attention somethingsomething.







Neil is EIE and in the opening statement you can hear how he value his Se.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Army Man said:


> In the very first post:


I just wanted to elaborate just why Si / Ni 1Ds can't control their urges / time focus:

That's because Si has it's own view on the world. Do remember that Si is a subjective sensorics, so...yeah. But being a gourmand or being a playboy(kinda like Picasso) doesn't necesarilly mean your Si is 1D. In fact, it could be 4D due to your ability to detect what suits your subjective views / pleasures the best and dose it. When to start / when to stop etc. Si 3D+ know exactly when to stop with food, sex etc. Si 2D know only from suggestions / advices / norms. Si 1D have NO IDEA unless they went through 80% alike situation before. And that's mostly due to model A. For Si suggs, they lose the control over it due to getting distracted with things that excite their Ne, that'd say mental energies. For Si PoLRs, their Ni gets spoonfed by their powerful Ne Demo. And they again end up in their head. That's why you can hear about Si 1Ds who either go way overboard with physical leisures or don't do them at all. Black and white being the hallmark of 1D after all :wink: 

Meanwhile Ni is all about constructing mental constructs. Time being the ultimate mental construct, seeing how in nature...there is no time. That's why 1D Ni's ability to control its focuson time is...shitty for the lack of better word. Put a 1D Ni(whether) in a room without a clock(say casino) and he could spend DAYS there without realising the passage of time. The fact that his Se is getting copious amount of enjoyment doesn't exactly help either(for Ni sugg). For Ni PoLR, his Si would end up being spoon fed through his Demo Se. Again-a perfect storm for losing the track of time(or rather thoughts / attention).


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Ixim said:


> I just wanted to elaborate just why Si / Ni 1Ds can't control their urges / time focus:
> 
> That's because Si has it's own view on the world. Do remember that Si is a subjective sensorics, so...yeah. But being a gourmand or being a playboy(kinda like Picasso) doesn't necesarilly mean your Si is 1D. In fact, it could be 4D due to your ability to detect what suits your subjective views / pleasures the best and dose it. When to start / when to stop etc. Si 3D+ know exactly when to stop with food, sex etc. Si 2D know only from suggestions / advices / norms. Si 1D have NO IDEA unless they went through 80% alike situation before. And that's mostly due to model A. For Si suggs, they lose the control over it due to getting distracted with things that excite their Ne, that'd say mental energies. For Si PoLRs, their Ni gets spoonfed by their powerful Ne Demo. And they again end up in their head. That's why you can hear about Si 1Ds who either go way overboard with physical leisures or don't do them at all. Black and white being the hallmark of 1D after all :wink:
> 
> Meanwhile Ni is all about constructing mental constructs. Time being the ultimate mental construct, seeing how in nature...there is no time. That's why 1D Ni's ability to control its focuson time is...shitty for the lack of better word. Put a 1D Ni(whether) in a room without a clock(say casino) and he could spend DAYS there without realising the passage of time. The fact that his Se is getting copious amount of enjoyment doesn't exactly help either(for Ni sugg). For Ni PoLR, his Si would end up being spoon fed through his Demo Se. Again-a perfect storm for losing the track of time(or rather thoughts / attention).


Fascinating, so what does this mean about my type? Not clear to me what your point is.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Army Man said:


> Fascinating, so what does this mean about my type? Not clear to me what your point is.


Being, with which do you identify more?


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Ixim said:


> Being, with which do you identify more?


I thought you were trying to point me to one or the other. Now you're asking me a question?


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Army Man said:


> I thought you were trying to point me to one or the other. Now you're asking me a question?


Oh, it wasn't meant for you. It was meant for a general public because I've seen people ask me "why is this so?". So, I explained it.

As for you, ofc i asked you a question because that is how everything in psych goes. Questions, questions, even more questions. After you've chosen one or the other, I'd have directed you to read the descriptions of types / functions / elements on multiple sites to see whether you agree with that. YOUR OPINION ALWAYS BEING THE PRIORITY!

...this is the standard procedure after all :wink:


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

Ixim said:


> Oh, it wasn't meant for you. It was meant for a general public because I've seen people ask me "why is this so?". So, I explained it.
> 
> As for you, ofc i asked you a question because that is how everything in psych goes. Questions, questions, even more questions. After you've chosen one or the other, I'd have directed you to read the descriptions of types / functions / elements on multiple sites to see whether you agree with that. YOUR OPINION ALWAYS BEING THE PRIORITY!
> 
> ...this is the standard procedure after all :wink:


All information should be considered, both for and against one's views. One can still make their own choice of course, but I think it better if choices are informed as opposed to uninformed.
At any rate, I understand what you were doing before. Thanks for explaining that.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Army Man said:


> All information should be considered, both for and against one's views. One can still make their own choice of course, but I think it better if choices are informed as opposed to uninformed.
> At any rate, I understand what you were doing before. Thanks for explaining that.


No problem.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

RubiksCubix said:


> INFP's do that. It's pretty cute. Especially when you know they're thinking naughty or controversial things and yet they keep tight-lipped about it.


I can not ever not think controversial things. Don't mock my pain


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Army Man said:


> In the very first post:


So are you trying to say that you can't tell how not to be late without being early?

Do you lack ability to forecast, do you lack ability to feel the flow of time?


----------



## Super Luigi (Dec 1, 2015)

myst91 said:


> So are you trying to say that you can't tell how not to be late without being early?
> 
> Do you lack ability to forecast, do you lack ability to feel the flow of time?


You asked three questions:
1) Yes, it's either one or the other with me. As in, I'm either late or early. Punctuality is incredibly difficult.
2) No.
3) No, but it seems like the time of my life just all flows together and it's hard to remember what happened on which days at which times. That's generally, though. Depending on the specific event, I may or may not be better at recalling the details.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Army Man said:


> 1) Yes, it's either one or the other with me. As in, I'm either late or early. Punctuality is incredibly difficult.


This, by the definitions in this thread (which are correct), indicates an _absence of_ situation-specific dimensionality of the Ni function, meaning-- if going by MBTI order rather than Socionics-- your Ni is neither the "dominant" (leading/base/program in Socionics) nor "auxiliary" (creative in Socionics) function.

It also isn't-- in Socionics-- your Demonstrative function (which could be considered the "Shadow of Auxiliary" in MBTI) or your Ignoring/Observing function (roughly, "Shadow of Dominant").

Your answer in the quote right there tells me that your Ni _is_, however, any of these: Mobilizing ("tertiary"), Suggestive ("inferior"), Role ("shadow of inferior"), or Vulnerable ("shadow of tertiary").

　



Army Man said:


> 2) No.


Being able to forecast shows that it's probably at least 2-dimensional.
1) You indicated 2D or 1D Ni in your first answer.
2) You indicated an ability that only 2D Ni can do in this second answer.
*counter-example)* If you were 1D Ni, you'd simply _like making forecasts, but be no good at it_.

This second answer narrows it down to 2D Ni:
*A) Ni* is your Mobilizing function ("tertiary")
... which would mean, by Socionics, that your Vulnerable ("shadow-of-tertiary") has to be Ne

_*~OR~*_

*B) Ni* is your Role function ("shadow of inferior")
... which, by Socionics, means your Suggestive ("inferior") would have to be Ne.

　
Rather A or B, knowing you have 2D Ni seems like a simple nugget of information, but it actually narrows down your type to: *{A} xSI ("*ISxP*"* in MBTI = because tertiary Ni*)* or *{B} SxI ("*ISxJ*"* in MBTI = because inferior Ne*).*

　



Army Man said:


> 3) No, but it seems like the time of my life just all flows together and it's hard to remember what happened on which days at which times. That's generally, though. Depending on the specific event, I may or may not be better at recalling the details.


This doesn't really add anything to the above (1)-(2) combo of answers. But, perhaps it just means you're a Sensoric (that's a cooler word than "Sensor", on par with the coolness-sounding-'ness of "Intuitive", which I like because S-types don't get hardly enough credit)....

Sensorics tend to get "absorbed" in experiences, while Intuitives tend to set themselves apart from it. That's just an opinion I have outside of the confines of the definitions in this thread.

If we're going by this thread, your first two answers were the most insightful and narrowed things down:
To 1 of 4 types, including what you have above your avatar, so that gives some credence and supporting theory to your listed type being correct.

The dimensions are
Experience (every function/Information-Element of every person has this... it's simply the act of mentally processing);
If you add Norms, it's 2D (Experience + Norms). However, the norms are what's normal for the individual. Without the third dimension:
Situation, someone with only Experience+Norms is going to develop habits that are very hit-or-miss and hard to apply to the situation;
Lastly, the fourth dimension is Time, meaning you basically Experience it (1D), know how this information generally appears (2D), know how to adjust your use of this information processing to every changing situation (3D), and have a good self-awareness of all the different situations across time that you've used this function in dealing with life (4D).


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> Interesting. i see Se and Ni more action-reaction, making that into information and communicating it. Ne Si is attention/steering attention somethingsomething.
> 
> 
> Neil is EIE and in the opening statement you can hear how he value his Se.


I think you're correct... for IEIs and Ni-Se types, only, though. Which makes sense from your experience as an IEI. Mine as well.

In people with Ni and Se as their Accepting valued functions ("Ni-leads" or "Se-leads"), Se and Ni are going to be more action-oriented and be the "underpinnings" of their Creative+Mobilizing+Demonstrative+Vulnerable functions.

In Ni-leads or Se-leads, they're going to have Ne/Si as Accepting subdued functions, which could easily "steer attention" in a vague "somethingsomething" manner.

However... let's take an EII for example:

Fi and Te would be there "underpinnings" (action-reaction) and Fe and Ti their "vague attention-steerer" (attention somethingsomethings). If going by your terms.

　

Keep in mind, that some people would consider the mobilizing and suggestive functions to be more "attention-steering" in terms of value, and the demonstrative and ignoring functions more "attention-steering" in terms of sheer desire. I reserve "vague attention-steerer somethingsomething" in this context as neither of those pairs: Rather, I get what you're getting at, and say that it's more a result of Accepting+Subdued.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

there is also the dischontomy called Reasonable(Ne,Si)/Decisive(Se,Ni) which states:



Reasonable said:


> Doesn’t rush when it comes to making a decision, takes time to think it over. Normally he or she is relaxed. Finds it hard to function on the spot without external motivation.





Decisive said:


> Normally he or she is mobilized. When the work is done, finds it hard to relax without a ritual (say, “we-did-it!” party) or help of the others.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> there is also the dischontomy called Reasonable(Ne,Si)/Decisive(Se,Ni) which states:


I wasn't going to get into Reinin, specifically Quadra dichotomies, but yeah, that's basically it: Reasonable vs. Resolute (I use "Judicious vs. Decisive", and I guess you use a fusion of the two nomenclatures.)

However, the Decisiveness is going to be more "underpinning the actions/reactions" in Ni+Se Accepting/Valued rather than producing. In Ni+Se Producing/Valued (Ni-creatives, Se-creatives = xIE and xSI), it probably looks a little different. Perhaps more controlled and reserved in its decisive opinions..?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Kerik_S said:


> I wasn't going to get into Reinin, specifically Quadra dichotomies, but yeah, that's basically it: Reasonable vs. Resolute (I use "Judicious vs. Decisive", and I guess you use a fusion of the two nomenclatures.)
> 
> However, the Decisiveness is going to be more "underpinning the actions/reactions" in Ni+Se Accepting/Valued rather than producing. In Ni+Se Producing/Valued (Ni-creatives, Se-creatives = xIE and xSI), it probably looks a little different. Perhaps more controlled and reserved in its decisive opinions..?


its basically a description of difference between Ne Si valuers and Se Ni valuers.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Army Man said:


> You asked three questions:
> 1) Yes, it's either one or the other with me. As in, I'm either late or early. Punctuality is incredibly difficult.
> 2) No.
> 3) No, but it seems like the time of my life just all flows together and it's hard to remember what happened on which days at which times. That's generally, though. Depending on the specific event, I may or may not be better at recalling the details.


I see.




Kerik_S said:


> Being able to forecast shows that it's probably at least 2-dimensional.


Yet not able to be on time sounds more 1D...


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> its basically a description of difference between Ne Si valuers and Se Ni valuers.


Within Ni+Se-valuers are people with Accepting Ni or Se (IEI, ILI, SEE, SLE) and people with Producing Ni or Se (EIE, LIE, ESI, LSI). They're all Decisive, they occupy both Beta and Gamma, but Accepting-Decisive and Producing-Decisive splits both Quadras (Beta = Beta-Accepting-Decisive IEI & SLE + Beta-Producing-Decisive EIE & LSI) and (Gamma = Gamma-Accepting-Decisive ILI & SEE + Gamma-Producing-Decisive LIE & ESI).


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Kerik_S said:


> Within Ni+Se-valuers are people with Accepting Ni or Se (IEI, ILI, SEE, SLE) and people with Producing Ni or Se (EIE, LIE, ESI, LSI). They're all Decisive, they occupy both Beta and Gamma, but Accepting-Decisive and Producing-Decisive splits both Quadras (Beta = Beta-Accepting-Decisive IEI & SLE + Beta-Producing-Decisive EIE & LSI) and (Gamma = Gamma-Accepting-Decisive ILI & SEE + Gamma-Producing-Decisive LIE & ESI).


why are you complicating this simple matter?


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought it was like a hierarchy:

*1D = E*xperience = (if valued) wanting to learn how to forecast and feel the flow of time, but failing at both

Everyone on the planet has At-Least-1D Ni. If subdued, they'll only want to forecast + "flux" when their super-ego compels them. If 1D and subdued, they'll suck at both forecasting and what I'm calling "fluxing" (feeling the flow of time, being on time).

*2D = N*orms = being able to forecast in an instrumental way (forecasting of the general, but failing to apply it to your own situation, thus failing to grasp the flow of time)

Fluxing is something I consider a 3D-form evolution ("advanced form", more sophisticated) of instrumental forecasting.

*3D = S*ituation = being able to forecast in a specific way (meaning, you can forecast how long something will take in your own situation, thus being able to grasp at the flow of time better)

3D is where you can flux reliably.

*4D = T*ime = being able to forecast in a specific way and have a storehouse and working knowledge of how to adjust your forecasting based on previous experience, like Experience + Norms + Situation + (Adeptness-In-Improvisation + Micro-adjustments on the fly).

From my experience, 4D Ni can lead to estimating the time it will take correctly, but occasionally getting so into the process that I end up making micro-adjustments to my plan that steer me off course: Being late not because I gauged incorrectly, but because I tried to optimize my time and do more in the originally-allotted time than planned. The Time aspect makes me a bit of an overkill with time-management to where I'm usually squeezing in "extra" stuff and occasionally making it out the door 5 minutes late and occasionally nailing extra things down and still making it out three minutes early.

Over-flux! ^_^


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> why are you complicating this simple matter?


It's not simple. Someone with Ni and Se in Lead/Suggestive is going to be much different than someone with Ni and Se in Creative/Mobilizing.

Over-complicating things would be introducing dichotomies that don't exist. Accepting and Producing splits every Block of the Socion, so it's too basic to be considered a complicating factor.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> why are you complicating this simple matter?


Why does what's apparently complicated to you seem like simply an extension-of-a-theme to me?

We think differently. That's the whole point of people subscribing to multiple theories like Socionics + Enneagram + DCNH + whatever else is in my signature. I think with my masturbatory use of Ti, breaking it down seems like more of a refinement than a complication.

I wasn't attempting to challenge you. I was just spouting the workings of Socionics. A system rooted in dichotomies and overlapping-of-dichotomies isn't "complicated" by simple mentioning a dichotomy.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Ok maybe I should have rephrased it, why so much text. While LSE have a strong Se function is have a very distinct flavor to it since it totally dismiss Ni.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

I do not even see this 'different school of thought, Socionics'. It is basically a model to explain reality which in itself do not have schools.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> I do not even see this 'different school of thought, Socionics'. It is basically a model to explain reality which in itself do not have schools.


But they use and highlight different dichotomies. The intellect works in discriminating factors. As someone who used to ignore his Ti, I know the whole "non-duality" thing. It's as much of a delusion as strict duality. In the intellect, duality is the reality. In the irrational, non-duality is the reality. Reality is pluralistic like that.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Kerik_S said:


> But they use and highlight different dichotomies. The intellect works in discriminating factors. As someone who used to ignore his Ti, I know the whole "non-duality" thing. It's as much of a delusion as strict duality. In the intellect, duality is the reality. In the irrational, non-duality is the reality. Reality is pluralistic like that.


Its not pluralistic. Not for an Ni anyways. Dichotomies is just description of things that differ between different blocks.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> Its not pluralistic. Not for an Ni anyways. Dichotomies is just description of things that differ between different blocks.


I'm Ni-lead, and I acknowledge it's all the same stuff, but the systems are looking at different aspects, so each dichotomy presents a lens to look at a different aspect. Redacting the intellect to center its focus upon a nondual core is a function of any irrational-introverted-leading function. In many situations, overuse-- redacting to nonduality-- becomes an excuse for intellectual laziness. And occasionally egregious misconduct: "If we're all the same, I can treat everyone how I treat myself." or "I'm going to die anyway, might as well smoke and endanger my health."

Duality is very useful to constructing a less animalistic-- and more meaningful-- lens through which we arrange the non-dual irrational reality.

What you describe as "for an Ni anyways" is only a Ni who has a particular philosophy. Philosophies are constructed using combinations of IEs. I use different combinations than you. Hence, I find meaning in an epistemiologically-plural scope of reality because of my philosophy (pretty Ni+Ti, Ti-heavy for an IEI), and you find meaning in a nondual-core/social-constructionist scope of reality (which is more Ni+Fe, with a larger heaping of Ni than Fe).

Me engaging in this discriminating between myself and you-- just like my discriminating between Accepting-Decisive and Producing-Decisive-- is just as meaningful to me as nonduality and "simplification" is to you. I used to be all about the non-duality, so I know the urge to call-out people who use their intellect as "complicating" things.

Forcing myself to abide by non-duality made me absolutely miserable, so I refuse to come over to the pluralistic side and tell intellect-heavy people that they're overcomplicating things.

Many different scopes. Because I've looked through them all in this aspect (intellectualization, nonduality, and now "epistemological pluralism"). They're all valid. It depends on the mind that's using it to determine how much it "works" with their preferences.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Its like, MBTI and Socionics is different branches of Jung. But me as a Ni lead rejected MBTI and follow Jung and do it within Socionics. Its basically start with an individual and then he did made it into parts, Feeling and thinking and etc. Then different combo of that give different types. Even those feeling and thinking was made into smaller parts, abstract and concrete or whatever. Its all just a logical construction of this fact. There is no different school, just different people have had experiences and we all merge it all together into this frame of work. Which is not really possible in any other frame that exist what I found. Gulenko, LII, do some interesting things with DCNH but it is not based on Jung but what he find be the essence in each type that is based on type. Good for him. In a Ni world nothing can conflict or it will be rejected or merge into a better frame, thats basically how Ni-lead work it.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> Its like, MBTI and Socionics is different branches of Jung. But me as a Ni lead rejected MBTI and follow Jung and do it within Socionics. Its basically start with an individual and then he did made it into parts, Feeling and thinking and etc. Then different combo of that give different types. Even those feeling and thinking was made into smaller parts, abstract and concrete or whatever. Its all just a logical construction of this fact. There is no different school, just different people have had experiences and we all merge it all together into this frame of work. Which is not really possible in any other frame that exist what I found. Gulenko, LII, do some interesting things with DCNH but it is not based on Jung but what he find be the essence in each type that is based on type. Good for him. In a Ni world nothing can conflict or it will be rejected or merge into a better frame, thats basically how Ni-lead work it.


I merge things, too. But, I'm willing to look at how things differ more often than other IEIs. You look at nonduality more than other IEIs.

Yes, we're all looking at the same stuff, worded differently. I, personally, don't mind saying "This is where Socionics ends, and where I start using Enneagram." I could find a way to merge them, or find some dichotomies in Socionics that explain the same things as Enneagram, but I prefer to just use both systems on top of each other. I can merge them, but I like using Ti to dig into the frameworks of both and combine them together.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Kerik_S said:


> I merge things, too. But, I'm willing to look at how things differ more often than other IEIs. You look at nonduality more than other IEIs.
> 
> Yes, we're all looking at the same stuff, worded differently. I, personally, don't mind saying "This is where Socionics ends, and where I start using Enneagram." I could find a way to merge them, or find some dichotomies in Socionics that explain the same things as Enneagram, but I prefer to just use both systems on top of each other. I can merge them, but I like using Ti to dig into the frameworks of both and combine them together.


but it is just different aspects of one and a single reality. Only thing I found truly consistent throw time and personal development is type. Enneagram is fun too. Type is almost like math. thinking-feeling dichotomy is like + and -. Then there is more to it and in the end where we are now with full blowed Socionics type and starting to understand how types interact with other types and IE and those functions is like advanced math. There are some laid out things already but everyone is free to discover it.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Kerik_S said:


> I thought it was like a hierarchy:
> 
> *1D = E*xperience = (if valued) wanting to learn how to forecast and feel the flow of time, but failing at both
> 
> ...


No, norms level is not simply about failing to apply generalities to a specific situation. It's norms of situtations that can't be applied to new, more complex situations "as is".


----------



## Murkury (Oct 10, 2011)

Anyone else find it a bit odd that when the dimentionality of a function drops from level 3 to level 2, in one type to another; the opposite state of that function drops 3 levels (vice versa)???... 

e.g.

Ni Fi 4 

3 Fe Ne 

Ti Si 

Se Te 



Ne Te

Ti Ni

2 Fe Se

Si Fi 1 

I know that opposite states are unvalued, but the difference in dimention somehow doesn't seem realistic...


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Murkury said:


> Anyone else find it a bit odd that when the dimentionality of a function drops from level 3 to level 2, in one type to another; the opposite state of that function drops 3 levels (vice versa)???...
> 
> e.g.
> 
> ...


There is another change: you make the type introverted from extraverted. So of course, that introverted function will drop downwards a lot. If you want to keep the type introverted while you, for example, drop dimensionality of Fe, the dimensionality of Fi won't drop as much as in your original example. (Will drop the same amount as Fe's. Two dimensions down.)

...And if you don't want to drop two dimensions for Fe, just "a bit" while keeping the type introverted, that will require a more refined model than this Socionics model, but anyway, the Fi should actually get strengthened with such strengthened overall introversion.

PS: in your example, the differences in dimensionality have nothing to do with the function being valued/devalued. You could take LIE instead of ILE in your example and have the Fi as valued, yet 1D.


----------



## Murkury (Oct 10, 2011)

myst91 said:


> There is another change: you make the type introverted from extraverted. So of course, that introverted function will drop downwards a lot.


Sounds like a good theory, but the other 3 introverted functions only change 1 position ; )



myst91 said:


> PS: in your example, the differences in dimensionality have nothing to do with the function being valued/devalued. You could take LIE instead of ILE in your example and have the Fi as valued, yet 1D.


True true, but then I guess the FE would be valued (IEI) vs devaulued (LIE), and not nescessarily up for comparison ; )


I don't like MBTI, as it is a bit of a mess with it's matching of functions to dichtomies, but perhaps thier order of functions maybe be more realistic, as far as the fact that the 'shadow' functions match the order of the main functions?

e.g. the following might be more realistic...

Ni Ne
Fe Fi
Ti Te
Se Si

Ne Ni
Ti Te
Fe Fi
Si Se

Not arguing with the validity of socionics though, just speculating : )


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

counterintuitive said:


> I just read the OP and I have a question @Ixim. I know this was a while ago, but what does control of one's own mental processes and creativity have to do with Ne?
> 
> I don't know a single adult who cannot control their own mental processes - virtually every adult can do this barring an actual neurological or psychological issue. But they do not all have 4D or even 3D Ne. That is, many are Sensorics.


What is even meant by controlling own mental processes? Please give me some examples that you think everyone can do.




> Plus, everyone is creative in their own way, with their strong and valued IEs (those in the ego block). That again has nothing to do with Ne specifically.


Look at what creativity tests measure... this brainstormy crap. That is Ne.

They can also touch on Ni, though, depending on the specific test.




> Also measuring creativity doesn't really make sense, at least not without first precisely defining creativity. Creativity can be anything; I can personally conceptualize anything at all as a creative endeavor. Anyone can define it in such a way that their strengths/ their areas of creativity are *the* measure of creativity, thereby defining themselves as creative. Plus, as I said above, everyone is creative in their own way, they just need to find how they are creative and harness it.


Its definition is usually to do with novelty, flexibility, divergence, originality. 




> Creativity itself tho is NTR.


I hate even the word itself. When you get told "be creative", I just hate that. What's the point of that? Nothing. Yes, my POV. But I think it is type related.

Sorry, yes it also annoyed me when you said "everyone is creative in their own way, they just need to find how they are creative and harness it". I do not care to find and harness my own creativity. meh.

Sure I have my own brand of "creativity" but it's all done from logic. It's really really not creative in the sense people usually mean by it. It's only creativity in the sense that with my work I do eventually end up at some result or product that was not done before or is not trivial. Since I can go pretty deep and pinpoint things others have not noticed/realized. Maybe my Socionics Creative function helps too. 

EDIT: ...hm, I thought about this a bit more, I maybe sometimes feel I'm thinking about something in some really special way that is beyond the "box", I associate this with Ni really, but I still would not call this creativity in the typical sense.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

myst91 said:


> What is even meant by controlling own mental processes? Please give me some examples that you think everyone can do.


What I meant is most adults can control their mental processes to the extent required to write a brief email or forum post for instance. In writing this post, you controlled your own mental processes. You've even said before that your mind does not wander, IIRC, which is admirably strong control over your mental processes. I wish I could be like that tbh.



> Look at what creativity tests measure... this brainstormy crap. That is Ne.
> 
> They can also touch on Ni, though, depending on the specific test.


Those tests are absolutely terrible. "Think of 100 uses for a chair!" Here's one, why don't I fashion a knife out of the chair and stab the writers of these tests. I suck at those tests...

Anyway, that's definitely not how I see creativity; to me, creativity is something actually useful, not something utterly pointless like thinking up 100 uses for a common household object. Lol. But yes, I suppose those tests do reflect some common idea of creativity, or they would not be commonly called "creativity tests" as they are.



> Its definition is usually to do with novelty, flexibility, divergence, originality.


Oh, that's different. Huh. Most people I know mean "does paintings" "plays music" "draws cats" "wears cool fashion" "dyes hair purple" when they say creativity. If it's not immediately visible/tangible as original or w/e, then they don't see it as creative :S.



> I hate even the word itself. When you get told "be creative", I just hate that. What's the point of that? Nothing. Yes, my POV. But I think it is type related.


I don't like to be told shit like "be creative" either, along with "be spontaneous" and "think outside the box" and "expand your horizons" and "the sky is the limit" - I will punch you if you say that crap. Lol. I'll also punch anyone who wants a "brainstorming session!!"



> Sorry, yes it also annoyed me when you said "everyone is creative in their own way, they just need to find how they are creative and harness it". I do not care to find and harness my own creativity. meh.


Sorry, I misphrased that. I meant to say that *_if you want to be creative_*, then you can be, if you find and harness your own creativity - but, of course, there is no obligation to want to be creative in the first place. That is, no obligation to find and harness your own creativity.



> Sure I have my own brand of "creativity" but it's all done from logic. It's really really not creative in the sense people usually mean by it. *It's only creativity in the sense that with my work I do eventually end up at some result or product that was not done before or is not trivial. Since I can go pretty deep and pinpoint things others have not noticed/realized.* Maybe my Socionics Creative function helps too.


Bolded sounds pretty damn creative to me, but this is just my view of creativity, not society's. Few people understand or appreciate logical creativity :/. I do, because I do the same thing a lot at work. I get really deep into a system/issue/problem we have and like you I can pinpoint things others may have overlooked. Most people don't even see this as creative. Because they are stupid and cannot look beyond their music/paintings/purple hair idea of creativity. 

Also, as another example, my mother (Si creative) is a massage therapist, and she's _very_ creative with her work in an Si way. I can't really describe it well tbh, maybe b/c of my own unrefined Si lol, but she is definitely creating some result in the world. But again, most of society would not see it as creativity. :/

For that matter, IRL, most people see me as conventional, boring, and uncreative. I don't "think outside the box" or any of that garbage. I'm often put on the spot like "come up with a new idea!" and I'm like "uhhhhhhh..." mind is totally blank every time. My new boss (of a few weeks) has already criticized me for being uncreative and "afraid to try something new". No one except my old boss (the one I mentioned before a few times) has ever called me creative IRL.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

counterintuitive said:


> What I meant is most adults can control their mental processes to the extent required to write a brief email or forum post for instance. In writing this post, you controlled your own mental processes. You've even said before that your mind does not wander, IIRC, which is admirably strong control over your mental processes. I wish I could be like that tbh.


Umm you mean something like discipline?

Lol, btw, about my mind not wandering, it doesn't have too many tools at its disposal to do so anyway  I have a really bad ability for brainstorming. But if you mean staying focused on a long, monotonous task, then yes, that does need a bit of control. I do get to feel the need to apply control for a second, here and there, to continue but this really isn't often. Might be the control is natural by default and just gets conscious for these seconds. :crazy:




> Those tests are absolutely terrible. "Think of 100 uses for a chair!" Here's one, why don't I fashion a knife out of the chair and stab the writers of these tests. I suck at those tests...
> 
> Anyway, that's definitely not how I see creativity; to me, creativity is something actually useful, not something utterly pointless like thinking up 100 uses for a common household object. Lol. But yes, I suppose those tests do reflect some common idea of creativity, or they would not be commonly called "creativity tests" as they are.


I actually posted a thread on a creativity test recently and a lot of people were pissed off by the test being so silly. I don't know who makes these tests :tongue: But they do test at least for some aspect of flexibility in thinking I guess. That pure brainstorm ability.




> Oh, that's different. Huh. Most people I know mean "does paintings" "plays music" "draws cats" "wears cool fashion" "dyes hair purple" when they say creativity. If it's not immediately visible/tangible as original or w/e, then they don't see it as creative :S.


Lol hm I actually have heard that meaning of "creative" too and again I'm left unimpressed.




> I don't like to be told shit like "be creative" either, along with "be spontaneous" and "think outside the box" and "expand your horizons" and "the sky is the limit" - I will punch you if you say that crap. Lol. I'll also punch anyone who wants a "brainstorming session!!"




Hmm, comparison of dominant functions... if someone told me to think logically, to look at how beautiful mathematics is, etc I'd just stare blankly at them. It'd definitely feel weird being told these things. Though the enthusiasm for mathematics, if it goes beyond just this one exclamation, it can be OK. Guess I'm absolutely not seeking out Ti. roud:




> Sorry, I misphrased that. I meant to say that *_if you want to be creative_*, then you can be, if you find and harness your own creativity - but, of course, there is no obligation to want to be creative in the first place. That is, no obligation to find and harness your own creativity.


Heh, no worrries, but anyway, I still skip over such statements. :tongue:




> Bolded sounds pretty damn creative to me, but this is just my view of creativity, not society's. Few people understand or appreciate logical creativity :/. I do, because I do the same thing a lot at work. I get really deep into a system/issue/problem we have and like you I can pinpoint things others may have overlooked. Most people don't even see this as creative. Because they are stupid and cannot look beyond their music/paintings/purple hair idea of creativity.


Glad you get what logical creativity is 




> Also, as another example, my mother (Si creative) is a massage therapist, and she's _very_ creative with her work in an Si way. I can't really describe it well tbh, maybe b/c of my own unrefined Si lol, but she is definitely creating some result in the world. But again, most of society would not see it as creativity. :/


I get what you mean.




> For that matter, IRL, most people see me as conventional, boring, and uncreative. I don't "think outside the box" or any of that garbage. I'm often put on the spot like "come up with a new idea!" and I'm like "uhhhhhhh..." mind is totally blank every time. My new boss (of a few weeks) has already criticized me for being uncreative and "afraid to try something new". No one except my old boss (the one I mentioned before a few times) has ever called me creative IRL.


Why did your new boss think you are afraid to try something new?

Yeah I remember you telling how you would create a lot of improvements from your ideas* at the workplace, that's why your old boss called you creative?

*: Surely not just twice a year.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

myst91 said:


> Umm you mean something like discipline?


IDK, maybe. I just mean the basic control of mental processes for daily conversing, writing, etc.



> Lol, btw, about my mind not wandering, it doesn't have too many tools at its disposal to do so anyway  I have a really bad ability for brainstorming. But if you mean staying focused on a long, monotonous task, then yes, that does need a bit of control. I do get to feel the need to apply control for a second, here and there, to continue but this really isn't often. Might be the control is natural by default and just gets conscious for these seconds. :crazy:


Oh, well, I still think that's admirable. I can't stop the involuntary, constant, unwanted pest that is a wandering mind. I honestly wish I could cut that piece out of my brain and be a normal person again.

Yeah, I think most people struggle to some extent with a long, monotonous task, haha. But yes, that is interesting that you don't need to re-apply control that often.



> I actually posted a thread on a creativity test recently and a lot of people were pissed off by the test being so silly. I don't know who makes these tests :tongue: But they do test at least for some aspect of flexibility in thinking I guess. That pure brainstorm ability.


Lol well I'm glad other people also think it's silly.  It is. I suck at brainstorming, like I said when people tell me to come up with an idea on the spot I just freeze up and go blank. Lol.



> Lol hm I actually have heard that meaning of "creative" too and again I'm left unimpressed.


Agreed, I meant to say it was unimpressive as well haha.



> Hmm, comparison of dominant functions... if someone told me to think logically, to look at how beautiful mathematics is, etc I'd just stare blankly at them. It'd definitely feel weird being told these things. Though the enthusiasm for mathematics, if it goes beyond just this one exclamation, it can be OK. Guess I'm absolutely not seeking out Ti. roud:


If someone told me to think logically, I'd probably get defensive, but other than that, probably similar.



> Heh, no worrries, but anyway, I still skip over such statements. :tongue:


OK 



> Why did your new boss think you are afraid to try something new?


Because I am...?



> Yeah I remember you telling how you would create a lot of improvements from your ideas* at the workplace, that's why your old boss called you creative?
> 
> *: Surely not just twice a year.


I used to do that, and yes, that's why old boss called me creative (as well as innovative and other flattering adjectives, lol). And yeah it might be more than twice a year then depending on how you define 'idea'. 
I don't do it any more though, not for any type-related reason but simply because I've checked out of my job. Lol. I'm looking


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Why do you say you are not creative? Or that you are afraid to try something new? ...innit contrary to Ne to say those things?


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Ixim said:


> Why do you say you are not creative?


Because I'm not creative.



> Or that you are afraid to try something new?


Because I'm afraid to try something new.



> ..innit contrary to Ne to say those things?


My point exactly.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

counterintuitive said:


> IDK, maybe. I just mean the basic control of mental processes for daily conversing, writing, etc.


I still don't know what was meant by "controlling own mental processes" so I'll skip this.




> Oh, well, I still think that's admirable. I can't stop the involuntary, constant, unwanted pest that is a wandering mind. I honestly wish I could cut that piece out of my brain and be a normal person again.


Umm you didn't have that issue either before the fog?




> Lol well I'm glad other people also think it's silly.  It is. I suck at brainstorming, like I said when people tell me to come up with an idea on the spot I just freeze up and go blank. Lol.


At work you were fine with it now though? (Referring to your new post in the reinin thread)




> If someone told me to think logically, I'd probably get defensive, but other than that, probably similar.


Defensive, why?

I'm trying to imagine now how I'd react if someone told me to be a go-getter or realistic (Se), lol, I'd feel slightly annoyed, I think. I'd also find this "advice" weird/silly for the most part, like with Ti.




> Because I am...?


What sort of new things are you afraid to try there?




> I used to do that, and yes, that's why old boss called me creative (as well as innovative and other flattering adjectives, lol). And yeah it might be more than twice a year then depending on how you define 'idea'.
> I don't do it any more though, not for any type-related reason but simply because I've checked out of my job. Lol. I'm looking


Is it a new workplace now? I'm not sure I'm following here.




counterintuitive said:


> Because I'm not creative.


Aaah, your new post would refute that.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I figure the dimensionality interacts with sensitivity in a fun way. Like, an Fe dom or aux will be sensitive around Ti, so they may defy authority in a direct way whenever logical consistency isn't present. Could extrapolate this sort of analysis to all of them, so behaviors could be mildly helpful (but certainly not definitive)


----------

