# Function Obessiveness



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Your follow up thoughts on your mom sound a lot like Fe to me. They also sound somewhat like me.

I don't care what is most efficient like that, even though I know I should. Like, my Steam library contains 700 games. I got most of them on these bundle sales, but some I just bought because I love the game (even if I _didn't intend to play it_ a couple times!). Around 50 of them have been played all the way through, and the ones I have played like that are the ones I made a special point to get because I know I like them, for the most part. Because it isn't really about the money or what works right, its about that moment of awesome feeling when I got the game. And it is also because I can share my steam games with whoever, and so they continue to bring happiness. I like that. So I wind up playing something like a third of them, and I try out one of the others if I ever feel I need something new. Its like I gave future me a series of presents, really. Its also like I can't stand to not have nice things, which may be related to growing up super poor.

Oh, and it is also a bit of competition. I like having the most games out of my friend circle. I get to go "nyah nyah, I also only spent around 800 bucks for all this. You gotta know how to shop " and then see if they take up that challenge and try to beat my game count. Or my Steam user level, or what have you.

Or there is a really beautiful living room set in my possession. I paid 300 dollars over and above what I needed to pay to achieve the minimum functionality because I desired my living room to have a certain appearance, to cultivate the atmosphere. The appearance was important in relation to feelings it inspires. Now people who walk in compliment me on my setup, and I feel good for the compliment and they feel good for the rooms appearance. The dark woods really go together with the decorations and it sort of fades out of notice when we turn out the lights and turn on the TV, so we can watch horror movies in style.

I could go on. Basically, I use Fe and Role Si so I do some of these same things you are talking about, even as an Ni type. Role function can be noticeable in some type representative and suppressed in others.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Curi said:


> Sorry ^^


You're beyond recovery :laughing:



> Hm. I just remembered a recent frustration between us. There's this local author around here who wrote a book on the Civil War. I have no idea how we know him. My mother decided to buy the book and got him to sign it, which apparently made him "very happy" (which I feel is exaggerated. He was smiling sure, but _very_ happy?). The rest of us were upset because none of us will ever read the book so we think she's wasting money. She replied she just got a "happy feeling" from it as well and I pointed out that the guy didn't mean anything to us so the gift didn't mean anything as well. All it did was make her look good. And it didn't have anything to do with relation building I think because I don't think she hardly ever talks about him.


Yeah, sounds Fe-like.



> NH said on the Visual Typing thread when explaining Fe (albeit in SLE) that it wants to "take the right actions according to the right social systems to elicit the right emotional reactions" and I think that matches my mom's attitude perfectly. In her mind, she took the action of gift giving according to the Japanese custom to provoke "happy feeling."


Hmm. It seems like something normative (I mean normative dimensionality = 2D function). Not sure if it's right for Fe ego types specifically. 

Isn't Japanese gift-giving custom is about showing respect rather than about provoking happy feelings? IIRC for that matter Japanese culture is considered to be Fi and Si, namely Delta. It's debatable of course and I'm familiar with Japanese customs only superficially. 



> You make it sound so simple >< If a reasonable-sounding stereotype is repeated enough it begins to sound like a basic.
> I found the bolded a very appealing way to express every person is a variant. That doesn't have to do with much except it's pretty and actually makes you slow down and process that.
> 
> And you'd need a lot of experience to recognize that distortion because it isn't as straight forward. But even at that, that would be awful to have to repress your strongest cognitive processes.
> Thank you for your insight~


I just think there's no need to complicate something that is already pretty complex. There are different complementary (or misleading, depending on the point of view) theories in Socionics that may overwhelm anybody, so I try to keep my approach as simple and basic as possible.

You're welcome


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

To_august said:


> You're beyond recovery :laughing:
> 
> 
> Yeah, sounds Fe-like.
> ...


She did say LSE so that would make sense. In the larger context she did mention it was more of a rule-base thing with Fe in tow. 




> Isn't Japanese gift-giving custom is about showing respect rather than about provoking happy feelings? IIRC for that matter Japanese culture is considered to be Fi and Si, namely Delta. It's debatable of course and I'm familiar with Japanese customs only superficially.


Ah this is where it gets complicated because my mom is now in America so the customs have changed but she still wants to hold onto her old customs (gosh, don't ever spill water) and lines begin to blur. I shouldn't have used Japanese custom, I should of used Quasi-Japanese-American custom. I didn't because it's still foreign to me, so I don't always clearly see the American aspects of it. 

Abstractly first, about the rule, I didn't emphasize the rule as a cause and effect or logical progression enough to see how that might seem like faulty logic; I focused more on their individual three components so that's where I went wrong/wasn't precise enough about. The logical flow gets "messed up" with my mom because she has combined multiple social systems together. The rule is (simplistically. For the sake of the aspect I'm talking about. I think it could go in both directions and yada yada yada, but anyway the rule is...) inputting an action into reference source and then expecting the output from the reference source. My mom used multiple reference sources and combined each of them (and her own experiences) to make her own reference source to give her a sense of input and output. So she modified the components of the rule to not make it as clear cut (and is, additionally, generally more sophisticated/adaptable than that. She can expect many outputs). 
When I saw the idea, I saw the foundation of it as fitting to encompass the basics of her attitude without realizing how complicated it was. It seemed natural to me. She built beyond it and I didn't express that clearly enough. I've been trying to simplify things. 

As a side note about her adapting, she uses gift sharing for many different purposes I haven't mentioned. One of them is the original reason, or she wants something (bribery), or to relieve anger, or the reason I gave in the example above. It's a multi-purposed tool in her hands and I just picked one for example. Again, simplification on my part. 

Anyway, elaborating the rule more in details... 
Yes, I agree gift sharing is more about showing the status of a relationship in Japan so the logic/rule above wouldn't even fit. Gifts don't really indicate emotion. So I have to revise my statement about her following the rules perfectly because she has fixed and adapted the rules there: She transported a socially accepted custom from her home to America (People give gifts here too but I still see her gifts as more Japanese style... She does it way more often than the average American and I'm alarmed at certain situations when she wants to give a gift because she doesn't realize it would be perceived as bribery) and then saw the customs were different here and modified her custom's original purpose to match here more (but not completely) and also to get what _she _ wanted: making people smile/indicate happy feeling. 
Breaking it down...
take the right actions > Taken from Japan. 
according to the right social systems > This doesn't exist to anyone other than her because she got creative and melded America and Japan and her own ideas together. She still sees gift sharing as the right thing to do according to society but she's following her own separate system inspired by the two. In other cases, like mentioned above, she does give gifts to improve relationships and to show respect but not always which makes me think she's been Americanized and she's following her own ideas/experiences. Her motivations are complicated which is why we can never talk her out of it because we don't completely understand. 
to elicit the right emotional reactions" > Of her own choosing (might be appreciation, sense of obligation, sense of guilt, not always happiness primarily). I'm not aware if Americans necessarily give gifts to make people happy, because it always seemed to me it was out of obligation. 

I shot the original rule's purpose and idea in the head (which was to show how 2D Fe worked compared to Fi) and replaced it with my own... Sorry, I should probably be more explicit next time and give a better context. Whoopsies. 

Sorry again if I was redundant but I just wanted to make it clear how I thought about it. Also I'm not expert either and this is based on my observations and what I've heard about an area in northern Japan and in particular one family so I can't really say it is representative of all. 



> I just think there's no need to complicate something that is already pretty complex. There are different complementary (or misleading, depending on the point of view) theories in Socionics that may overwhelm anybody, so I try to keep my approach as simple and basic as possible.
> 
> You're welcome


Understandable ^^


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

To_august said:


> Hmm. It seems like something normative (I mean normative dimensionality = 2D function). Not sure if it's right for Fe ego types specifically.


Yes, I was thinking of low-dimensional Fe valuers when I stated that, just confirming. More specifically xLEs.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Gonna pop in here and say that it sounds like your mom is using Ti to value Fe. Maybe an ILE? Possibly SLE too. That process you mention is strongly emphasizing making her *own* system of rules and doesn't seem super high Fe per se. Might be Ti over Fe.


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Gonna pop in here and say that it sounds like your mom is using Ti to value Fe. Maybe an ILE? Possibly SLE too. That process you mention is strongly emphasizing making her *own* system of rules and doesn't seem super high Fe per se. Might be Ti over Fe.


Hm. Explain more? I thought it worked both ways. Does Fe not have their own set of rules? Even my Fe-base friend breaks away from the rules of her society and has created her own beliefs. I'm confused. Also my mom is in a unique situation of having to adjust to two very different external environments. She spent half their life there and half of her life here. Of course she would be forced to make her own rules? It'd be ridiculous for her not to adjust and isn't Fe dynamic? 

I was under the impression 3D Fe wanted its 2D Ti to help qualify its system of beliefs and wants some level of structure? 

Also, keep in mind, that my mom probably views her rules the same way a chemist views his rules--guidelines with a million exceptions. I was saying she was using Fe-Ti rules in that particular example (which again is a revision from my previous statement. I said it fit her attitude perfectly and implied that was always the case). From my perspective that particular example makes logical sense to me but there are many times when she seems to go off and I have no idea what she's thinking. It doesn't occur to her... Like my mom can do Action X but nobody else can because why? No one knows. She needs assistance on understanding what is a trustworthy source of information (which seems more Te) and I always have to break down things logically for her.

Hm. As To_august said, that "rules idea" is not applicable to Fe doms and while I have re-purposed the original idea, I might have done it incorrectly. So this might have been a giant misunderstanding on my part. 

This summer we were walking down an Arts Festival and she was mentioning which booths seemed happy or sad or blala. We saw this little boy who she gave her fan to and afterwards she said he was very happy and I went ???. I didn't sense that at all. We went to a booth of an old man selling Israeli art and she mentioned how sad and happy he was because he was selling art but he knew he was going to die soon. That was the focus she expressed.

Sorry if I misunderstood anything. Still learning.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

To make my point on rules clearer. All IEs have rules. Fe is not an exception. You just have to make sure that the rules you're talking about are actually _Fe_ rules and not just any rules person follows, since different IEs refer to different kinds of rules.

Also worth mentioning that Fe base types being 4D Fe also have Fe rules. It's just that dimension of norms is not a limit for them. They have all of it - 1D Fe+2D Fe+3D Fe+4D Fe - so why bother sticking to rigidity if you can bend it your way.

I recommend reading this article on normative dimension for more info - Dimension two | School of System Socionics
(For reference: E=Fe, R=Fi, I=Ne, T=Ni, F=Se, S=Si, P=Te, L=Ti)

* *





*Dimension two. Parameters "experience" and "norms"*

How do we understand each other? How can we come to terms with the others? We can not live without communication, without coordinating our actions, thoughts, understanding and perception.

In order to come to a mutual agreement there must be something that is commonly accepted, something that is perceived and understood by all in the same way. And that's where comes into play the next parameter - the "norms".

*Norms* - are something which is conventionally recognized by a group of people. Norms are something which allows you to compare things, they are patterns, a standard reference. Society could not exist without such conventions.

If experience can be imagined as single dots on the world map, the norms could be seen as fixed lines stretching from some point to another. Norms perfectly reflect the dualistic division of the world into good/bad, good/evil, right/wrong, you need/you do not need accept/do not accept ours/strangers, etc. These are very definite guidelines. And because of their definitive quality, they are rigid and inflexible. They are firm as sentinels guarding what they are meant to guard.

Now you are able to explain to someone else what the green color is - because there are the color charts. Now you can be sure that you are holding your fork and knife up to the etiquette. Now you know that you won't to shock people, by putting on white socks together with dark trousers. Now you are firmly convinced that 2 +2 = 4, and thank God, everyone has been taught that in school. You can now refer to a dictionary or a textbook. All in all, we have finally found something definite in this ever-changing and multifaceted world.

*Two-dimensional functions ( #3 and #6) - are the functions that process information according to the parameters "experience" (Ex) and "norms" (Nr).*

How does the thinking of a two-dimensional (normative) function sound like?

It is clear that it must be the most correct and proper mindset in the world, because it is exactly up to the conventions, because it follows the rules and agreements. What could be better? Everything is predictable and determined, everything is right on the mark. Men are courteous with ladies. Everyone is kind and friendly. Long live general consent. Hurray!










And in order to create such a "paradise on earth" serve the following:



proverbs and idioms, which reflect established views and beliefs;
regulations, rules and laws;
reference books;
uniform education;
trusted sources of information;
set of superstitions and customs;
obligations;
conformism;
conventionalism.
Let's try to look at "norms" being applied to respective information elements.

For example, the *normative E* can be seen in identical cliche smiles. Examine carefully your photographs and photographs of other people. Particularly well this can be seen on photographs of children, because children are more spontaneous when express their natural emotions. If you scroll through a family album, you will notice that facial expressions of some people are nearly the same on all pictures, whereas others have a wider emotional range. Normative smiles look standard and correct in all situations. As if normative E-types feel some limit to how much they can stretch their facial muscles, and everything that goes further is risky and ventures beyond the the average. Normative E-types know well situations in which they are required to smile, for example, when meeting people, when saying "goodbye" when showing their disposition to someone during a conversation, etc.

*Normative R* is knowing the rules of manners, the rules of courtesy - men let forward women in the doorway, yield a seat in the public transport. One's behavior should not cause inconveniences to other people, one should always say hello, say goodbye, be polite, etc. The thing which we call good manners is normative behavior in terms of R. A normative R-type looks tactful, polite, courteous, in general he looks "correct" in his manners.

*Normative I* seeks to absorb the "right" understanding and interpretation of everything it is facing. Outwardly, this can manifest in frequent use of some idioms, witty phrases "hitting the nail on the head" joined with the urge to use them in conversation (show off one's erudition). But, be careful, this is rather not a sharp improvisation, not a game of the true wit, this is merely a repetition of the cliches which one considers to be witty. It takes some time and observation to clearly distinguish between the two cases. A normative I-type tends to convey ideas in unambiguous and accurate way and expects the same from the others. The game of meanings (creative manifestation of intuition) is not for him. He would rather not get confused in a labyrinth of meanings. Sometimes one could observe a manifestation of normativity related to the I-element as repetition of quotes or ideas after a smart and reputable person. A normative I-type is rigidly fixed to his set of meanings, and believes them to be uncompromisingly true.

Some examples of norms related to the I-element:



stereotype use of the meanings of words and concepts
plain messages in accordance with generally accepted meanings
The need to make everything clear and unambiguous
The need to understand the essence of things
the need to understand a person's motives, his personal traits and qualities
need to have a sense of everything
the need to understand and be understood
*Normative T* manifests in punctuality and stereotyped understanding of the course of events, fate, luck. Normative T is often characterized by fatalism trust in predictions (divination), making certain rituals in order to magnetize a desired event or avoid an undesired one. A person with the normative T is credulous towards the sources that seemingly accurately predict "what would happen", if he knows that many people rely on the source (for example, numerology, astrology, etc.)

*Normative F* relies on the existing social norms regarding the boundaries, space, financial wealth etc. It is guided by the standard, rather rigid rules regarding the need to protect property or accepted level of aggression. For example: "One must defend the homeland, relatives and people who can not defend themselves." A normative F-type is aware of socially accepted means of protection and standard ways to attack (for the minus sign), and is acting on the basis of general notions of limits of protection (aggression), for example, "never hit a man when he is down", "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", "a defense must be proportional to the attack" etc. A normative F-type can correctly estimate the degree of spatial proximity to another person and considers the property right: to whom the things belong and what could be taken without asking.

*A normative S-type* follows an inner drive to correspond to the established rules of clothing, color combination, follows the rules of hygiene and tidiness. He can follow certain stereotypes of how to dress, which are accepted within his social circle. He has a stereotype understanding of how visual perception of certain forms can be manipulated (for example, narrow/wide strips or checks used to create visual effects of narrowing or expansion). We can generalize this tendency with the maxim " to be like everyone else", where "everyone else" can refer to followers of a new fashion or a specific style as well as the classical standard. The person himself does not experiment, but is following and imitating the others. The vital track two-dimensional function is more likely to stick to its own acquired patterns, habitual dress models and color combinations.

People with *normative P* tend to the exact implementation of technology, methods, specific actions, they tend to be "right" professionals. That usually makes them diligent executors. Work is work, work is duty.

*Normative L* manifests as effort to be consistent (in thought and deed) - usually for rational types it is striving to follow the rules, fixation on a certain theory, it can be a correctness of reasoning, a standard approach to the classifications, generalizations. This is the standardization itself. 1

This all serves as a basis for people's two-dimensional functions - in their thinking, in their outlook. And people can confidently defend their normative views, because it is important for them to feel the certainty and firmness of the things. Thus, the essence of the dimension two is the quality of being right and rigidity, there are definite black-and-white style guidelines.

*The essence of Nr paramener is the perception of the world through patterns and established norms*

All that was said above about the characteristic features of the normative functions is completely true for the mental track normative function 3, also known as the "function of social norms." The function 6, as you know, belongs to the vital track of information processing, and it is called "the function of individual norms." The same norms are present there, the function is rigid in the similar way, but the norms here are not regarded as social, they are rather meant "for personal use". This does not mean that they are formed in isolation from the society, on the contrary, these rules are formed in the childhood, under the influence of the family and the school. But it looks as if a person selects from all the norms that society has to offer those with which he agrees. It turns out that the rules are assimilated on the personal level, in the form in which the person had learned them. Therefore, the personal norms may be the same as social ones, or may differ. But the general feature of a normative function is there, which is following the set patterns, the quality of correctness, and the feeling of duty.

Another feature of the function 6, (also known as the "reference function") is the desire to get confirmation (preferably a praise). Asking for a praise often bypasses awareness of the person himself. It seems as if an adult person should not be asking for a praise, it looks childish to act like that (because the norms are already internalized), but the wanting of a positive feedback is still present, and it comes through to the surface somehow. Typically it can manifest in the form of non verbal signs. The person does not say bluntly: "Come on, someone praise me", but instead he pleadingly looks into your eyes, or repeats the same sentence several times, as if expecting the desired reaction, or keeps returning the conversation to the "sweet" topic over and over...

*Other papers on the topic:*



Eglit I.M. Dimensions of functions
Eglit I.M., Pyatnitsky V.V. Investigation of fears in one-dimensional functions.
Eglit I.M. Use of protocols for TIM identification by correspondence in the Internet
Eglit I.M. Low dimensional functions are not "weak".
Eglit I.M. TIM identification
Nr parameter definition
Normative functions: functioning and identification (materials from the Internet forum)
[HR][/HR]
1 Similar descriptions of normative functions' manifestations could be used to for TIM identification based on the behavioral description. We would like to warn against such a simplified approach. The main purpose of these examples is to show how the phenomena related to the dimension "Nr" manifest themselves outwardly - generally they manifest as a form of the inner desire to pin down a certain fixed rule. This is what you need to pay attention to when identifying a TIM. It can be manifested in a lot of ways, and I describe here only some of the manifestations which, from my experience, seem to be most typical ones.

Eglit IM ©




What Curi described seemed to me more like rigid Ti, probably 1D and vital if her mom has difficulties with checking out norms of reality and is too wrapped up in her own idea of what it should be like.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Ehhh....it didn't seem wrapped up in her own view if reality to me, it seemed to be cognizant of reality and choosing to subtly tweak what rules to use in that reality. Normative Ti is going to perceive the rules, but high dimension Fe is going to know how to bend those rules acceptably and still achieve the atmosphere it wants. Normative Fe is going to know how to act in a normal way, but high dimension Ti is going to know the reasons behind the rules and be comfortable breaking those rules in favor of self made rules.

So really, with this little information this is mostly a semantic and viewpoint difference, @To_august. Unless I am missing something and you can show me the high Fe and the low Ti. It is true that I did not reread the entire page and verify the accuracy of my statement; I went off that single post only. 

Eh, maybe I'm wrong. :/










EDIT: It is indeed important to note that different functions will have different "rules". Good point.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Normative Ti is going to perceive the rules, but high dimension Fe is going to know how to bend those rules acceptably and still achieve the atmosphere it wants. Normative Fe is going to know how to act in a normal way, but high dimension Ti is going to know the reasons behind the rules and be comfortable breaking those rules in favor of self made rules.


It doesn't work that way, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying...
Fe deals only with Fe information and Ti deals only with Ti information. That's the whole point of having 8 different IEs itfp. Fe can't bend Ti rules, because Fe has nothing to do with those rules. They are totally separate aspects of reality. If it could, it wouldn't be Fe anymore but high dimension Ti.



> So really, with this little information this is mostly a semantic and viewpoint difference, @*To_august*. Unless I am missing something and you can show me the high Fe and the low Ti. It is true that I did not reread the entire page and verify the accuracy of my statement; I went off that single post only.


Agreed. Too little info to tell anything certain.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

To_august said:


> It doesn't work that way, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying...
> Fe deals only with Fe information and Ti deals only with Ti information. That's the whole point of having 8 different IEs itfp. Fe can't bend Ti rules, because Fe has nothing to do with those rules. They are totally separate aspects of reality. If it could, it wouldn't be Fe anymore but high dimension Ti.
> 
> 
> Agreed. Too little info to tell anything certain.


No, Fe Egos bend Ti rules because Fe is more important, and Ti is Normative for some of those so the rules are understood yet bent/broken anyway. Ti Egos go against Fe rules in the same manner. Ones lower functions, even if valued, are not upheld at all times because the Ego-agenda is seen as important and is also more capable. Fe deals with Fe but Fe Ego has lower Ti and higher Fe and so Ti rules get broken when Fe judges that the use of Fe in a certain way which is also against Ti is still desirable. Like Fe Egos exaggerating a tale being told for the dramatic affect, which is against the objective factual accuracy that more logic driven types may prefer. Fe broke a Ti rule. Simplistic example, but easily extrapolated from. You could say this is just low dimension of T, but the reason for it tells a different story.

I disagree strongly with the statement that one cannot bend the rules of another. My example shows that quite clearly, and it is borne out by how people actually behave. If a Ti type can't go against their Normative Fe rules because they use higher dimensional Ti, the system wouldn't make sense. No, when low dimensional functions do not succeed it is precisely because of the biases and misunderstandings against those functions caused by them being lower dimensional, with other functions preferred. Or its a situation where they failed in even the Ego functions, which would be jarring either way. Failing in all respects is actually a good thing for growth though.

What I do think is that doing this can cause cognitive dissonance. Prioritizing one aspect of life over another aspect when both are valued can lead to self doubts.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lets mosey said:


> Sure thing (and good luck), I just thought I'd mention it because of your comment about unsolicited typing.


Based on what I've read on this thread, I'd posit that SLI or possibly LSE are probably pretty good suggestions. I lean SLI though.

@Fenix Wulfheart

What you are suggesting isn't Fe bending Ti rules though, in the same way @To_august is talking about. She's talking about dimensionality, not how high Fe controls Ti egos. In fact, what you describe is better explained by Fe simply being Fe and indeed understand Fe rules. See, as soon as high Fe meets with high Ti, it goes nowhere. It's kind of like what happens when the unstoppable force meets the unmovable object. You achieve some kind of equilibrium so nothing moves anywhere. 

I mean, how you "bend" Ti rules isn't per se bending Ti; what you really are doing is that you choose to forego Ti with Fe instead which is what you yourself admitted that you're doing (see, that's me using Ti on you, pointing out your own inconsistency with your claims). So what you're really talking about is how intertype works where high Fe manipulates low Fe in the high Ti type, but in terms of information processing, Fe can never process Ti. Then it's Ti. 

So that's not bending Ti rules; that's bending poor Fe when Ti has prominence in the psyche because poor Fe means poor understanding and awareness of Fe rules in addition to being able to know how to manipulate them. 

To take your own Ti as an example, your Ti is normative. It means that you understand how to follow basic rules and be overall decently consistent most of the time, but you do not know when it is all right to not be consistent or when you should be consistent when you're not; similarly, you do not understand in what situations it is fine to ignore certain logical rules, definitions or axioms and when it is not fine to do so.

You for example recently wrote that you have problems when people change their definitions of a thing in an argument and when you're requested to define something, you may refer to a dictionary definition even if it actually seems unorthodox to do so in that situation, especially with regards to how rigidly you may stick to it even after the context of discussion changes. 

This is a great example of 2D Ti because you clearly demonstrate difficulty dealing with Ti in a situational way, understanding when it is fine to for example ignore the dictionary definition in favor of a more, personal and subjective definition or using a definition that is lesser known or not nearly as universal that is more suitable for this particular context. 

Similarly, in this situation that you are in now with me and to_august, you showcase poor Ti when you mix up terminology, failing to understand that Ti and Fe are their own unique objects with their own unique properties to them that distinguish them apart. These properties are what help to define what Ti is as opposed to what Fe is. While originally identified to be a part of the same axis, Ti and Fe are ultimately utterly opposed to each other, not sharing any true similarities outside of being intrinsically linked together and thus in a sense, two sides of the same coin.

Because of this, Ti and Fe can never be a part of the same categorical system like we can do with do with say, cats, where we have big cats, small cats, orange cats, black cats and so on. Yet they are all cats and therefore share a lot of properties together that can ultimately define them as cats and not dogs. 

What we can do if we wanna box them together, is to do something like this:



*Human psyche*

IntroversionExtroversion

IntuitionSensationThinkingFeeling

NeNiSeSiTeTiFeFi



Kind of limited with what I can do with PerC code, but to give you a rough idea, where these are levels to describe the functioning of the psyche by breaking general categories down further and further (next step in this breakdown would for example be the introduction of model A). I tried to think of a way to depict this so introverted functions and extroverted functions also fall under their own respective definition of introversion and extroversion, but I think I need some kind of 3D image for that I guess. 

Also, if you are familiar with Plato an easier way to understand it is that to Ti, all categories ultimately seem to have their own categorical essence to them which keeps them apart from other categories. You do not therefore mix and mash these essences because then the categories break down and everything becomes meaningless because you no longer know what is what anymore. It's all just this grey soup and that's what Ti hates the most; it wants to be able to define and categorize reality so everything is placed in its own little neat boxes. Everything can and should be logically identifiable. If it is not, it is meaningless and needs to be identified. 

What's different when it comes to high vs low Ti is that low Ti is either super fuzzy about always sticking to the definitional essences of categories or just throw them out of the window all together. In general, either low Ti sticks to a system like the above as if their lives depended on it and when they do they are unable to know how to re-categorize it into a different way that's more suitable to the context, or they ignore it all together.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Based on what I've read on this thread, I'd posit that SLI or possibly LSE are probably a pretty good suggestions. I lean SLI though.


Thanks for the input. Is there anything specific that jumps out at you as Si-Te rather than Te-Si? Also, if you have the time and interest, would you say her questionnaire here also reflects delta ST?


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

@Curi don't really have insight on this thread but it struck me as interesting that you thought it was strange she bought a book from a local author and was pleased that it made him happy?

This seems normal to me, and I don't think it's just Fe and 2, I see this outside myself a lot too. I mean of course it makes people happy to buy their things, especially a book or piece of artwork or something personal like that. I feel like this might say something about your type - seems like Fe PoLR possibly? 

Am I off base?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> @Curi don't really have insight on this thread but it struck me as interesting that you thought it was strange she bought a book from a local author and was pleased that it made him happy?
> 
> This seems normal to me, and I don't think it's just Fe and 2, I see this outside myself a lot too. I mean of course it makes people happy to buy their things, especially a book or piece of artwork or something personal like that. I feel like this might say something about your type - seems like Fe PoLR possibly?
> 
> Am I off base?


I don't think the problem is that her mother bought a book to make someone else happy, but what they don't understand is _why_. The "why" hinges on Fe vs Fi. Anyone can obviously buy a book to make someone else happy, but why they do so differs a lot. An Fe type could do it because they want to see the smile on the face because another person smiling makes them feel that happiness too and feel like smiling. An Fi type could do it because they like the person and it's a way to show appreciation to the person. It's nothing to do with smiling even though obviously the person would smile out of happiness in both situations. That's because Fe and Fi pay attention to different types of information.


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

I have to catch up on this thread, but addressing the last post because it's easy to, my mother had Fe reasoning. I can't think of any reason why she would want to show appreciation to this author because she barely knew him and she didn't even read his book. She likes him, sure, but not on the level she wants to create a closer sense of relationship. As I said before, I have never heard or seen him since then, and if they were friends without me knowing, it would be very uncharacteristic of her not talk about him. So I doubt they have a real friendship. She definitely wanted to see the smile and I think she even said as much (but my memories are foggy and might be slightly biased).


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Entropic said:


> I don't think the problem is that her mother bought a book to make someone else happy, but what they don't understand is _why_. The "why" hinges on Fe vs Fi. Anyone can obviously buy a book to make someone else happy, but why they do so differs a lot. An Fe type could do it because they want to see the smile on the face because another person smiling makes them feel that happiness too and feel like smiling. An Fi type could do it because they like the person and it's a way to show appreciation to the person. It's nothing to do with smiling even though obviously the person would smile out of happiness in both situations. That's because Fe and Fi pay attention to different types of information.


Curi doesn't understand why, her mother doesn't understand why, or I don't understand why?
It just seems like a too common thing in life to really differentiate Fe vs Fi, it automatically satisfies both Fe and Fi. I guess a focus on the smiling is Fe though, agree re: Curi's mother, it just strikes me as an unusual thing to point out, which made me curious re: Curi

I mean if I go to the county fair and see someone selling their books I'll feel like I need to buy something especially if I know them or their stand seems empty, because a. I feel they are looking vulnerable and must correct it b. it will probably make them happy c. it would be awkward not to d. ...stimulating local economy?

But I wouldn't say 'I bought this because I would have felt bad if I didn't' because I would want to protect the pride, that's an embarrassing thing to have said about you.

Still Fe probably from my perspective but it seems we have a social rule of not talking about things a certain way, to protect feelings/peoples' pride.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Curi said:


> I have to catch up on this thread, but addressing the last post because it's easy to, my mother had Fe reasoning. I can't think of any reason why she would want to show appreciation to this author because she barely knew him and she didn't even read his book. She likes him, sure, but not on the level she wants to create a closer sense of relationship. As I said before, I have never heard or seen him since then, and if they were friends without me knowing, it would be very uncharacteristic of her not talk about him. So I doubt they have a real friendship. She definitely wanted to see the smile and I think she even said as much (but my memories are foggy and might be slightly biased).


I have trouble believing that Fi egos only buy things from their friends


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

@Phoenix Virtue Because I suspect Curi will try to do this diplomatically:

Remove yourself from this thread.


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I have trouble believing that Fi egos only buy things from their friends


Please be respectful towards me and others or leave. 

Also, you are strawmanning. Nobody ever said anything of the sort, and it is ridiculous for you to feel like you have a superior argument and you are burning your opponent's argument when you've made up the opponent's argument. Explain, in detail, where anyone implied only Fi egos can buy things for friends. If you don't want to, leave. I have OP privileges.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

edit: I do not want to insult anyone. I apologize.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> Fear not, I'll not be back.


We can only hope you'll stay true to your word.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

lets mosey said:


> We can only hope you'll stay true to your word.


I will, do want to apologize however for insulting you. Although I certainly found your manner of addressing me unpleasant, I overreacted and it was unkind.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I will, do want to apologize however for insulting you. Although I certainly found your manner of addressing me unpleasant, I overreacted and it was unkind.


You're trying to save your ass, I'm sure.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

lets mosey said:


> You're trying to save your ass, I'm sure.


No, I want to save my soul :angel::hotneko::angel:

And I want to apologize to you, because your post, while rude, did not warrant my reaction.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> No, I want to save my soul :angel::hotneko::angel:
> 
> And I want to apologize to you, because your post, while rude, did not warrant my reaction.


I don't give a fuck what you think about me.

You _should _be apologizing to Curi for saying she lacks common courtesy and common sense.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

lets mosey said:


> I don't give a fuck what you think about me.
> 
> You _should _be apologizing to Curi for saying she lacks common courtesy and common sense.


I didn't say you did, I said I wanted to apologize. It is nice to apologize when you have said something rude. I want it out there that I bear no hard feelings to you. 
I was hoping she had not seen that, and did not want to repeat it, can you delete that from your comment please?
But yes, I apologize for that too.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I didn't say you did, I said I wanted to apologize. It is nice to apologize when you have said something rude. I want it out there that I bear no hard feelings to you.
> I was hoping she had not seen that, and did not want to repeat it, *can you delete that from your comment please?*
> But yes, I apologize for that too.


No. Your behavior has consequences and you need to deal with them. This isn't the first time you've behaved this way.

I'm going to remove myself from this discussion because I don't want to derail the thread. I recommend you do the same.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

lets mosey said:


> No. Your behavior has consequences and you need to deal with them. This isn't the first time you've behaved this way.
> 
> I'm going to remove myself from this discussion because I don't want to derail the thread. I recommend you do the same.


ok lol. The point was to not insult Curi but you can make it a teaching moment.
I'm sure she can take it anyway haha :laughing: Not trying to patronize you @Curi and I'm sorry that I lost my temper.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> ok lol. The point was to not insult Curi but you can make it a teaching moment.
> I'm sure she can take it anyway haha :laughing: Not trying to patronize you @*Curi* and I'm sorry that I lost my temper.


Now do remove yourself.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

lets mosey said:


> Now do remove yourself.


Did that comment read to you like the beginning of a new saga of posts?
Stop bossing me around please and thank you.
I don't know what your problem is and I don't care to know but you can stop acting like I'm your enemy. You just dislike me and have a bad attitude to my posts, that doesn't give you any superiority over me, that's literally just your bias and your problem.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> Did that comment read to you like the beginning of a new saga of posts?
> Stop bossing me around please and thank you.
> *I don't know what your problem is and I don't care to know but you can stop acting like I'm your enemy.* You just dislike me and have a bad attitude to my posts, that doesn't give you any superiority over me, that's literally just your bias and your problem.


I know I'm guilty of prolonging this discussion, but, really. You've expressed hostile opinions about my character in the past. Curi and I have good reason to want to keep our distance from you, and quite frankly, your input is often a deterrent to meaningful discussion.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

lets mosey said:


> I know I'm guilty of prolonging this discussion, but, really. You've expressed hostile opinions about my character in the past. Curi and I have good reason to want to keep our distance from you, and quite frankly, *your input is often a deterrent to meaningful discussion.*


Hard to argue with that considering the past two pages :laughing:
And yes, the thread derail, the bogeyman of PerC. Mes apologies :gentleman:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

There must be something in how I am communicating that is confusing. I am not saying that a Fe Ego controls or bends a Ti Ego. I am saying that a Fe Ego uses Fe more than they use their Ti and thus the rules that Ti strives for are being bent or broken in service of Fe's aims. Precisely because Ti is lower in their psyche.

"So what you're really talking about is how intertype works where high Fe manipulates low Fe in the high Ti type, but in terms of information processing, Fe can never process Ti. Then it's Ti. "

NO. Not at ALL. ><

I am talking about a singular person. A singular person in whom the Fe and Ti process exists, with one stronger than the other. Them I am comparing that situation to another person in whom the processes exist in an opposite manner. Neither of them are interacting in any way, merely being examined.

So the Fe Ego can go against Ti rules - which are perceived as Norms - but doing so causes cognitive dissonance, and often must be rationalized through Fe rules. It has nothing to do with the Ti Ego, it has to do with how an Fe Ego behaves in relation to their OWN Ti.

Apologies if what I was saying was not clear.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

@lets mosey Your permanency of Fi judgments is showing. *arches brow* 

Nah, but seriously, something went down here omg. Heh. I think Curi has plenty of common sense and courtesy, for what its worth. And I don't think Phoenix meant to say anything as a permanent judgment. Whatever was said, I gather it was said in anger. Probably wasn't meant to be representative of her view of who y'all are statically and permanently.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> There must be something in how I am communicating that is confusing. I am not saying that a Fe Ego controls or bends a Ti Ego. I am saying that a Fe Ego uses Fe more than they use their Ti and thus the rules that Ti strives for are being bent or broken in service of Fe's aims. Precisely because Ti is lower in their psyche.
> 
> "So what you're really talking about is how intertype works where high Fe manipulates low Fe in the high Ti type, but in terms of information processing, Fe can never process Ti. Then it's Ti. "
> 
> ...


Here, I'll give you a hand with that explanation: Ti-leading types tend to create unified structures and sets of rules that as long as someone wants to use their structures or rules must all accept every aspect. To non-Ti valuing types that's very stifling. To Ti-valuing Fe ego types though they're seen as a useful new system or guidelines to follow and will wish to work within said guidelines. This is because Ti-egos are all static types while Fe-egos are all dynamic types and that is exactly how the Static -> Dynamic interplay and handing off works. Although that dynamic is very different for Ti-creative. What I wrote is of Ti-leading.

So a system comprised on Ti will quickly dehumanizing so the Fe-ego is there to spread positivity and good cheer to remind everyone that yes, you are all human. Not quite Ti-robots yet, at least not while the cheerful Fe-ego is around. Fe doesn't serve to bend the rules as that would ruin the fidelity of the system, Fe works to creatively re-interpret or change the rules to better suit changing requirements. Actually defiantly breaking Ti-rules in a Ti-valuing system is a huge no-no and the punishment, if mercy could not be granted, is strict.

So that's Ti-Fe interplay in a nutshell. You're still an IEE btw. :wink:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

How is creative reinterpretation of a rule not bending the rule? It sounds to me like we are saying the same thing, except that yours is much clearer.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

@Fenix Wulfheart It's not bending the rules because the rules aren't being changed. It would be more like looking at the rules and either interpret it in a different way and apply the rules in a new way or changing the interpretation altogether. Remember, Ti is subjective logic so you can argue for the meaning. You're trying to apply Te-objectiveness to Ti-subjectiveness.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

@Fenix Wulfheart

Entropic already beat me to it and explained well what I meant. 

As an addition. Sure, 2D IE doesn't mean that it is prioritized over the rest ones, only that when person deals with IE that is of two dimensions for them it is processed with a capacity of two dimensions. It didn't follow from what I said that normative IE should be prioritized. 

Your example is just Fe doing Fe stuff and processing Fe information. Making a tale dramatic doesn't break any T rules, because neither Ti nor Te have any rules regarding emotional effect information may elicit. T isn't concerned with dramatic effects or emotional tones. This is what Fe is for. You may call it breaking Ti rules if you like, but in fact you don't even touch on Ti information. In the same way you could say that you're breaking Ne rules or Se rules or whatever other rules different from Fe just by the fact of doing Fe. It's a fallacious reasoning.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

If you understand that something is a rule and then do not follow that rule because of N reason, I consider that bending the rule. What I said and what you say are describing the same outcome and the same reasons for doing so, with a different word choice. I am not seeing anything that disagrees with what I mean to say, only things that disagree with what I actually did say. This means that it is my problem for being unable to express it accurately, and continuing to discuss is not leading anywhere if I cannot articulate properly. So I'll drop it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> There must be something in how I am communicating that is confusing. I am not saying that a Fe Ego controls or bends a Ti Ego. I am saying that a Fe Ego uses Fe more than they use their Ti and thus the rules that Ti strives for are being bent or broken in service of Fe's aims. Precisely because Ti is lower in their psyche.
> 
> "So what you're really talking about is how intertype works where high Fe manipulates low Fe in the high Ti type, but in terms of information processing, Fe can never process Ti. Then it's Ti. "
> 
> ...


I understand you just fine, but I wonder if you actually understand _us_. We are talking about the context of dimensionality, but dimensionality has nothing to do with Fe ignoring Ti rules, and this ignoring is also applicable to intertype and integral when it comes to understanding intertype. 

And no, Fe ego does not go against Ti rules. In fact, Fe ego is operating in tandem with Ti in this situation. Ti is only 2D for you, so normative, and has only a certain ability to read rules and how to deal with rules. So instead it defers back to Fe because Fe is easier and more skillful but Fe operates on its own set of rules. Fe doesn't ignore those 2D rules though, but still adheres to them. If you didn't, you'd be inconsistent and that inconsistency would sorely upset your HA and in retrospect you'd look at yourself and be like "hrm, I should act differently because that was just too weird and out of character". So you notice 2D Ti rules and use Fe to see how you can apply 3D Fe rules to the situation. 2D Ti rules still apply. 

So Fe rules are independent from Ti. I was trying to express prior that Ti and Fe exist parallel, and that process is true here.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

@Fenix Wulfheart - Fenix, you are an IEE. :smile:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

So what you are saying is something like what I said here in Bold is correct, but what I said that is underlined is wrong. Am I correct in understanding you now? If that is what you meant, then yes I have been misunderstanding you. 



> So the Fe Ego can go against Ti rules - which are perceived as Norms - *but doing so causes cognitive dissonance*, and often must be rationalized through Fe rules. It has nothing to do with the Ti Ego, it has to do with how an Fe Ego behaves in relation to their OWN Ti.


Or, put another way, when I say a rule can be ignored but doing so is troubling: What is rationalizing that behavior and trying to make yourself feel better about having gone against what you think is the right thing to do? People do that in my experience, so what does that say functionally speaking?

If Ti and Fe exist in parallel as you say and the rules are completely separate, what happens when someone with higher Ti shows you where the error in your thinking is?

For example, in the typing thread for starvingautist. I found my errors in that thread quite embarrassing. When he called me out on it, I wanted to show that I did not say anything against what makes sense. In that situation, I had made sure to indicate that my thoughts were not definitive or 100% or what have you, because I *wasn't* totally sure. But I still wanted to be of some help. I would say that is F overriding T; helping was more important, but it was also necessary not to appear stupid and uninformed. I would say that was Fe trying to keep in parallel with Ti rules, but then Fe rules overriding Ti rules in the end, because of the relative importance and the choices made.

I just went and checked the definition of override, and I have been using it wrong.

"o·ver·ride
verb
verb: override; 3rd person present: overrides; past tense: overrode; gerund or present participle: overriding; past participle: overridden; verb: over-ride; 3rd person present: over-rides; past tense: over-rode; gerund or present participle: over-riding; past participle: over-ridden
ˌōvərˈrīd/

1.
use one's authority to r*eject or cancel* (a decision, view, etc.)."

I've been using it to indicate a reprioritization, which means that was the wrong word entirely.

I'm rambling, so i am going to hit post now.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

@Curi (Firstly, I found the thread! I've been wanting to reply for a while, but felt a bit self-conscious..)
Did you want me to post that response I gave to you about Fe? I'm not sure how helpful it was, though.


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

Going back to yesterday morning... 
@To_august thank you for the article. Also new site that I did not know exist in general!
I'm not sure if you and Fenix want me to continue the discussion of my mother (I took "Too little information" at face value), but if you do (it's completely fine if you don't), I'll respond with my thoughts after reading it. Additionally, thank you for defining the rules aspect of the conversation more clearly because the context/connotation behind its usage was beginning to get confusing (to me) ^^
@owlet, it's not necessary, but if you want to go ahead c:


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Curi said:


> Going back to yesterday morning...
> @*To_august* thank you for the article. Also new site that I did not know exist in general!
> I'm not sure if you and Fenix want me to continue the discussion of my mother (I took "Too little information" at face value), but if you do (it's completely fine if you don't), I'll respond with my thoughts after reading it. Additionally, thank you for defining the rules aspect of the conversation more clearly because the context/connotation behind its usage was beginning to get confusing (to me) ^^


It's more important what _you _want to discuss further, whether _you _want to continue and answers to which questions are interesting to you. I can't guarantee that I'll provide a useful insight, but if I'll have any thoughts I will share them of course.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

You like unsolicited typing, dontcha @*Scoobyscoob*? Seen you type FaT as LSE and now Fenix, even though both seem peachy with where they are, type wise (Ni, Ti and Fe for Fenix, I think that's what he generally goes by, at least based on some posts).


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Eh, he all right. Well, at least in my book, I have no idea if FaT is bothered.

Now, if he started harassing me about it and stuff it might get to me. I dunno. No one's done that one to me before, and I don't particularly want to start ^^

Do you intend to veer into full blown arguments, scooby? XD


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> So what you are saying is something like what I said here in Bold is correct, but what I said that is underlined is wrong. Am I correct in understanding you now? If that is what you meant, then yes I have been misunderstanding you.


No,I don't agree with the bolded. To explain it differently, take an EIE instead of an IEI that you are. An EIE has 4D Fe and 1D Ti. Because their Ti is 1D they are very erratic with regards to Ti stuff and because it's in the super-id, they just don't know how to apply it. The nature of their Fe being 4D is what makes their Ti 1D and vice versa. The fact that Ti is 1D is the sole reason for their erratic behavior with Fe, because they don't even know Ti norms. Thus they make up their own rules that are meant to justify their Fe, so Ti works independently of Fe. As a practical example, 4D Fe makes up a rule that in this space, I can say what I want or do what I want because I feel so; I have the right to express myself and voice my concerns without judgement or restraint. This is idiosyncratic use of Ti and ignores norms. Ti tempers the chaotic nature of Fe; it provides inner guidance and structure. This is because you cannot be consciously aware of them at the same time: either you use Ti or Fe, never both. This example demonstrates how it is the poor dimensionality of Ti that results in the EIE doing this kind of action. It doesn't mean that it is Fe bending Ti rules, but it is the initial poor understanding of Ti rules that is the original cause. I understand why you experience it the way you do, but in terms of theory, that's not quite right. 



> Or, put another way, when I say a rule can be ignored but doing so is troubling: What is rationalizing that behavior and trying to make yourself feel better about having gone against what you think is the right thing to do? People do that in my experience, so what does that say functionally speaking?


Understanding norms has less to do with doing the right thing or something like that. I'd say that's more related to Fi or even Ti because it's typically Fi that creates an inner moral sense of "the right thing". Ti can arrive at the same conclusion via logic, but it won't create an inner feeling of moral rightness about something. 

When talking about rightness or wrongness in terms of dimensionality, 2D functions always try to strictly adhere to anything pertaining to the norms of that IE even when it is detrimental to do so. That is true for your Ti as well, so you just have an innate sense of the norms of Ti and you always try to strictly adhere to it no matter what. You may use those norms in conjunction with your Fe in order to handle a situation more adequately, but you won't deviate from it. If you did, psychologically speaking, you don't possess normative understanding. 



> If Ti and Fe exist in parallel as you say and the rules are completely separate, what happens when someone with higher Ti shows you where the error in your thinking is?


Lower Ti concedes. It cannot refute or know how to adequately deal with that kind of criticism. 



> For example, in the typing thread for starvingautist. I found my errors in that thread quite embarrassing. When he called me out on it, I wanted to show that I did not say anything against what makes sense. In that situation, I had made sure to indicate that my thoughts were not definitive or 100% or what have you, because I *wasn't* totally sure. But I still wanted to be of some help. I would say that is F overriding T; helping was more important, but it was also necessary not to appear stupid and uninformed. I would say that was Fe trying to keep in parallel with Ti rules, but then Fe rules overriding Ti rules in the end, because of the relative importance and the choices made.


I would say that you are in general simply expressing Fe here, focusing overall on how you come across and are emotionally received/perceived. But yes, Fe rules are parallel to Ti rules and they can be used in tandem in your psyche in order to leverage various situations like the EIE example I provided, where Ti is used to support or validate the continued focus on their Fe. Unfortunately I don't understand the dimensionality of Ti very well, so I can't give as good an example with regards to 3D Fe and 2D Ti and how they operate together. 



> I just went and checked the definition of override, and I have been using it wrong.
> 
> "o·ver·ride
> verb
> ...


What do you mean by reprioritization in this context?

Also, I just read this, my apologies, I didn't see it earlier when I wrote my previous post to this morning:



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> If you understand that something is a rule and then do not follow that rule because of N reason, I consider that bending the rule. What I said and what you say are describing the same outcome and the same reasons for doing so, with a different word choice. I am not seeing anything that disagrees with what I mean to say, only things that disagree with what I actually did say. This means that it is my problem for being unable to express it accurately, and continuing to discuss is not leading anywhere if I cannot articulate properly. So I'll drop it.


I think your argument here is that you think of rules globally i.e. all kinds and all sorts of rules. This is true, there are a wide variety of rules present around us, but we need to be more specific than that. Global understanding does not cut it, but we need to be more narrow (ah, so that's why the original 80Q Ti question is about general to specific and specific to general lol) in our understanding.

So there are several sets of rules around us, but only some of those rules are related. For example, rules of gravity have nothing to do with rules pertaining social interaction, and rules relating to how to board a flight at an airport have nothing to do with the rules related to how to pay your taxes right. 

Similarly, Ti has its own sets of rules it understands. This is related to how Ti is an information element, it pays attention to a specific kind of information: that of logical relationships between objects. This focus and desire for logical relationships between objects can manifest such as a desire to pay attention to logical rules, hierarchies, consistency in thought and behavior and so on and so forth, all the things we associate with Ti. We can then understand this information in more or less nuanced ways. 

When you're talking about rules, you're not talking about the Ti rules that govern the dimensional use of Ti, but other kinds of rules that are around us e.g. social rules. So what you're really doing imo, is that you're "bending" the normative rules related to Fe. You understand when to ignore them and when to adhere to them, which makes perfect sense because your Fe is 3D.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> No,I don't agree with the bolded. To explain it differently, take an EIE instead of an IEI that you are. An EIE has 4D Fe and 1D Ti. Because their Ti is 1D they are very erratic with regards to Ti stuff and because it's in the super-id, they just don't know how to apply it. The nature of their Fe being 4D is what makes their Ti 1D and vice versa. The fact that Ti is 1D is the sole reason for their erratic behavior with Fe, because they don't even know Ti norms. Thus they make up their own rules that are meant to justify their Fe, so Ti works independently of Fe. As a practical example, 4D Fe makes up a rule that in this space, I can say what I want or do what I want because I feel so; I have the right to express myself and voice my concerns without judgement or restraint. This is idiosyncratic use of Ti and ignores norms. Ti tempers the chaotic nature of Fe; it provides inner guidance and structure. This is because you cannot be consciously aware of them at the same time: either you use Ti or Fe, never both. This example demonstrates how it is the poor dimensionality of Ti that results in the EIE doing this kind of action. It doesn't mean that it is Fe bending Ti rules, but it is the initial poor understanding of Ti rules that is the original cause. I understand why you experience it the way you do, but in terms of theory, that's not quite right.


Ah, but Ti itself is what has Ti rules. You can observe in different individuals who manifest the same TIM they have formed similar rules, independently of one another. If we assume that TIM determines cognitions and how they manifest, and we accept that different representatives of a give type share certain elements of cognition (Not all, obviously), then we must accept that the function itself does in fact have rules. This is how different representatives of a TIM can manifest the similar inclinations in this way. One might argue that this is instead linked to human nature, and thus the TIM determines what they pay attention to in forming their traits. But that doesn't invalidate that the net effect is manifestation of these same traits.

If we accept that the function itself has rules, then we must also accept that a type with the lower dimensionality function is less cognizant of those rules. If we assume that 2D valued and less is completely unconscious as Model A states, then everything you say makes sense.

Where we diverge is that I do not believe, and thus disagree with the model itself, that conscious/unconscious is the correct way to term this aspect. I do believe that one can become conscious of their "unconscious" functions. From my observations, this consciousness is short term. Much as you say an Fe Ego will not feel right if they go against Ti, I say that the valued functions will resonate into consciousness at one point or another. Such as noting, after the fact perhaps, that you have made an error in that function.

This is why I say what I say in regards to Fe breaking a Ti rule. Because the Ti rule is part of the function itself. If the rule is not part of the functional information the individual has consciously available, they may not even realize they are being inconsistent, for example; but when they do, it is painful. This pain is conscious, and the rule is conscious at that moment. At some point, it sinks in not to do that thing - the individual begins to vary more on the parameter of experience. When this variance occurs purposefully in this manner, I deem it conscious.

If I deem it conscious, then I must deem the rule conscious. If I deem the rule conscious, then I also must deem the act of breaking that rule in favor of something else also conscious. So if a person knows that the action they will take is logically inconsistent because they have done it before, and they do not like being logically inconsistent, but they then take that action anyway by prioritizing some other concern, then that act of defying one in favor of another is a conscious choice.

Or, put another way, mindfulness is a double edged sword because you can see in painful clarity your own weaknesses, including deficiencies in what you want so keenly to be your strengths.

I'm glad I was finally able to articulate this. Now poke some holes in it! ^^

(I did not read the below before writing this)



Entropic said:


> Understanding norms has less to do with doing the right thing or something like that. I'd say that's more related to Fi or even Ti because it's typically Fi that creates an inner moral sense of "the right thing". Ti can arrive at the same conclusion via logic, but it won't create an inner feeling of moral rightness about something.
> 
> When talking about rightness or wrongness in terms of dimensionality, 2D functions always try to strictly adhere to anything pertaining to the norms of that IE even when it is detrimental to do so. That is true for your Ti as well, so you just have an innate sense of the norms of Ti and you always try to strictly adhere to it no matter what. You may use those norms in conjunction with your Fe in order to handle a situation more adequately, but you won't deviate from it. If you did, psychologically speaking, you don't possess normative understanding.


I did not mean the right thing as in morally. When a Ti Ego goes "But that is inconsistent!" that is still commenting on the wrong thing. It is just speaking logically, not ethically. Ti has a "feeling" if logical calibration and correctness to the dataset from my understanding.

I like to think I have displayed higher Ti than what you say at times, but I honestly do not know. I'll think about it.

Thanks for taking the time to answer!



Entropic said:


> Lower Ti concedes. It cannot refute or know how to adequately deal with that kind of criticism.


That is exactly how I felt earlier when I said "I'll drop it".



Entropic said:


> I would say that you are in general simply expressing Fe here, focusing overall on how you come across and are emotionally received/perceived. But yes, Fe rules are parallel to Ti rules and they can be used in tandem in your psyche in order to leverage various situations like the EIE example I provided, where Ti is used to support or validate the continued focus on their Fe. Unfortunately I don't understand the dimensionality of Ti very well, so I can't give as good an example with regards to 3D Fe and 2D Ti and how they operate together.


That makes sense.

And, for not being able to provide an example - Fair enough! You've more than helped poke some holes in what I'm doin' here. Thanks 



> What do you mean by reprioritization in this context?


I was referring to a Fe type reprioritizing their behavior in favor of Fe instead of Ti, but I originally used the words Fe overriding Ti. Override means more to cancel completely, so it made it look like I was talking about some strange "person has 3D+ Fe and Ti but one is overriding the other" or some nonsense like that, all because I forgot what the word means. So reprioritizing, in the sense of knowing/being told the Ti rules but still choosing Fe, is what I was really trying to say.



Entropic said:


> I think your argument here is that you think of rules globally i.e. all kinds and all sorts of rules. This is true, there are a wide variety of rules present around us, but we need to be more specific than that. Global understanding does not cut it, but we need to be more narrow (ah, so that's why the original 80Q Ti question is about general to specific and specific to general lol) in our understanding.
> 
> So there are several sets of rules around us, but only some of those rules are related. For example, rules of gravity have nothing to do with rules pertaining social interaction, and rules relating to how to board a flight at an airport have nothing to do with the rules related to how to pay your taxes right.
> 
> ...


Good call; that's what I express above in this post. That is how I think of rules.

So...I'm thinking too generally and thus missing detail is what I am hearing. Yes?

As to your last paragraph, that entirely did not occur to me. I'm going to mull that over - it may have solved this confusion and made me see what you mean. I'll get back to you on this, after I can...erm...seal the deal, so to speak, on understanding it. ^^

(I left the first part of my response anyway so that I can demonstrate how I am reasoning this)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Fenix Wulfheart 
What determines dimensionality is also based on rules. I am not talking about understanding the subjectivity of Ti rules i.e. you have yours and I have mine, so now you're being too specific. What we're talking about are the specific rules that determine the dimensionality of one's understanding and ability to metabolize a specific IE, and these rules govern the ability to understand, create and relate to the rules you speak of.

So if we do it like a box, first we have personal Ti rules at the core, but outside we have the rules of dimensionality. As an analogy, everyone can spring to varying degrees; some cannot sprint at all and some are great sprinters. However, how capable you are at sprinting is determined by your genetics, overall physique and interest in sprinting as an activity. You're talking about one's ability to sprint in general, whether some people are good at sprinting or bad at sprinting, but I (and arguably to_august) am talking about the rules that governs people's ability to sprint in the first place. 

Someone born with frail legs will never be a good sprinter no matter how they try because it is simply not in their genetics to be a good sprinter. So while they can practice sprinting at their spare time and do all kinds of exercises i.e. what you mean when you talk about people having their own sense of rules, what exercises they can do will be fundamentally limited to their own physiological limitations i.e. dimensionality. 

This has nothing to do with consciousness/unconsciousness; in model A, you have an equal amount of conscious and unconscious control but most importantly, I think you need to define what you mean by conscious/unconscious. For example, being conscious of your id isn't possible because it's entirely unconscious. The super-id, however, is actually semi-conscious so you can become aware of your super-id functions but they tend to be fleeting. 



> This is why I say what I say in regards to Fe breaking a Ti rule. Because the Ti rule is part of the function itself. If the rule is not part of the functional information the individual has consciously available, they may not even realize they are being inconsistent, for example; but when they do, it is painful. This pain is conscious, and the rule is conscious at that moment. At some point, it sinks in not to do that thing - the individual begins to vary more on the parameter of experience. When this variance occurs purposefully in this manner, I deem it conscious.


See my sprinter analogy. You're not breaking Ti rules with Fe, you are breaking Ti rules with Ti due to poor awareness of Ti beyond a certain dimension.

Only Ti can create an awareness of Ti and therefore only Ti can break its own rules. When a 1D Ti type goes, "I have the right to change myself on a whim whenever I want", they do that precisely because their Ti is 1D. 1D Ti yields 1D Ti results. 1D Ti is not capable of being constantly consistent and it does not care for it; it is idiosyncratic because it is 1D. It may rigidly apply a certain rule across a certain context in another situation and then in exactly the same situation later drop it entirely and exchange it for a very different rule. That's not Fe overriding Ti rules, but that is having a poor sense of rules in the first place. 



> I was referring to a Fe type reprioritizing their behavior in favor of Fe instead of Ti, but I originally used the words Fe overriding Ti. Override means more to cancel completely, so it made it look like I was talking about some strange "person has 3D+ Fe and Ti but one is overriding the other" or some nonsense like that, all because I forgot what the word means. So reprioritizing, in the sense of knowing/being told the Ti rules but still choosing Fe, is what I was really trying to say.


Using the word "override" is just fine in this situation, imo, because one takes focus or prominence over the other. I think your point was clearer when you used the word "override" than "reprioritize", because the latter suggests some kind of re-arrangement functioning, meaning there was a set list of how things ought to be done and this was somehow replaced with another list that became the new norm. The word "override" doesn't carry the connotation that the new arrangement is the new norm, but suggests that the default was simply temporarily changed.


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

To_august said:


> It's more important what _you _want to discuss further, whether _you _want to continue and answers to which questions are interesting to you. I can't guarantee that I'll provide a useful insight, but if I'll have any thoughts I will share them of course.


Thank you ^^

Sorry I went on a rant about humor: 

* *





First of all, the 2D Ne description caught my attention because I notice this in some books I read. The "clever bits" seem to be trying to be witty but seems like a standardized dialogue or situation with nothing new about it. People sometimes say I'm being "witty" which annoys me because I'm merely saying formulaic mildly insulting garbage to them. But it's still useful because it allows me to talk to people I don't like/know that much for extended periods of time without getting too rude/seeming friendly in a dry way. Recently I got angry at someone, dismissed them, regretted it later because I found it mean/impatient, but my butt was saved because everyone thought I was just being "witty" so I still was socially appropriate/didn't hurt anyone's feelings yay. I still felt bad about it because it was the wrong thing to do. Actually, thinking about it, most of the time, wittiness is not used for actual humor but as a social cue or used to show a friendship is strong enough to withstand jabs.
Sorry, getting distracted, but wittiness annoys me most of the time and there is girl who detracts from the class conversation with her "witty" comments and I'm getting frustrated it. It also wastes time. 
For something to be genuinely witty/humorous there needs to be a personal aspect/investment into the banter. "Witty" shows (i.e. Gilmore Girls) aren't witty to me as a result because they're for a general audience, and not tailored to something specific to you. They bounce around too much for there to be any context/buildup. I'm sure it's witty to people who get pop references though bleh.




Anyway, sorry I'm getting back on track now to my mom. I read both the 1D and 2D articles (I could only read them on my phone for whatever reason) and I think she's 1D with 2D Te? Whenever someone tries to explain to her, she tends to rush us which corresponds to the "feverish" aspect of it and then accuses of us not explaining it properly to her. Going off that thought, even when we do the same logic over and over again, she kind of disregards it until someone not in the family explains it to her and then all of a sudden she "understands" it. It's like she cannot assess the logic herself at all and she doesn't trust us at all for whatever reason... But she trusts this new source and they explained the same thing, so why not believe it? Is that 2D Te with the Norms aspect of it? She has another source to believe and all of a sudden the logic is conventional(?) and I can use it! Actually reminds me of this post in a way about whether or not someone likes the input or the source. But I might be wrong and misunderstanding things. 

One example of this was when we were trying to explain why it was illogical for her to believe the cold actually caused sickness (I hope I don't have to explain why this is wrong... ._.). I got particularly ill-tempered about it because I'm not as affected by the cold as her (so we had different definitions of "cold") and in mild weather she would try to make me keep track of the coat unnecessarily because she thought I was going to get sick. Later that week, my dad asked the question during dinner time with his co-workers and they all laughed about it and explained the logic and then my mom stopped bothering me about it. 

EDIT: I realized I was making an over exaggeration and was using "over and over again" because I used it in the previous paragraph. Whoops. The bit about the cold causing sickness was a source of contention for about a week and came up on only three days. 

I/nobody in the family haven't gotten anyone to explain to her why she should stop using bottled water to water plants and why filtered water from a refrigerator will not kill you. Goals in life. Such a waste of plastic and money. 

Also conspiracy theories. She projects logic based on very little information so she over extrapolates her data to match how she feels about the person.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

O_o said:


> You like unsolicited typing, dontcha @*Scoobyscoob*? Seen you type FaT as LSE and now Fenix, even though both seem peachy with where they are, type wise (Ni, Ti and Fe for Fenix, I think that's what he generally goes by, at least based on some posts).


Is unsolicited typing not allowed? If not then what's your point. I don't like FaT and he doesn't like me. I don't mind that dynamic as I have zero ounce of respect for him as I made very clear to the PM I sent to him after he talked down to me in private message. Fenix, however I do like as a person so I'm more willing to work with him. Anything else you'd like to gripe to me about?


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Eh, he all right. Well, at least in my book, I have no idea if FaT is bothered.
> 
> Now, if he started harassing me about it and stuff it might get to me. I dunno. No one's done that one to me before, and I don't particularly want to start ^^
> 
> Do you intend to veer into full blown arguments, scooby? XD


No, I'd rather remain conflict free. The Socionics subforum has been seemingly negative these past few days and I'd rather not participate in such negativity. I would be thrilled if you did decide on IEE though. Just being honest here. :kitteh:


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Is unsolicited typing not allowed? If not then what's your point. I don't like FaT and he doesn't like me. I don't mind that dynamic as I have zero ounce of respect for him as I made very clear to the PM I sent to him after he talked down to me in private message. Fenix, however I do like as a person so I'm more willing to work with him. Anything else you'd like to gripe to me about?


Yup, it's in the rules, shockingly. 
Don't care how you feel about FaT or Felix, honestly. And nothing else I'd like to gripe you with, but I'll be sure to let you know if something comes up :hearts:


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

O_o said:


> Yup, it's in the rules, shockingly.
> Don't care how you feel about FaT or Felix, honestly. And nothing else I'd like to gripe you with, but I'll be sure to let you know if something comes up :hearts:


I just looked through the forum rules and I didn't see anything about unsolicited typing as against the rules. Regardless, I don't want to create any trouble so I'll keep typings to the appropriate subforums/threads. Also, :laughing: you were probably being sarcastic about that smiley but seeing it really made me laugh. :hearts: to you too,  :laughing:


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Scoobyscoob said:


> I just looked through the forum rules and I didn't see anything about unsolicited typing as against the rules. Regardless, I don't want to create any trouble so I'll keep typings to the appropriate subforums/threads. Also, :laughing: you were probably being sarcastic about that smiley but seeing it really made me laugh. :hearts: to you too,  :laughing:


Where did that fucker go, some folk talk about having issues with it
Here, this bugger. 


> [1. Do not make personal attacks] ...persistent and unsolicited public questioning of another member's type when they have not expressed such an interest.


Now, if they're easy going like Fenix, all is fine. But if you get someone grouchier and sensitive, they could make a case. I'm a grouchy asshole and would have made a case, if I had been in FaT's place, for example. 
Spreading the sass love huh? I appreciate that :love_heart:

(my bad this isn't on thread topic, I leave now! I leave <3 Curi)


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> What determines dimensionality is also based on rules. I am not talking about understanding the subjectivity of Ti rules i.e. you have yours and I have mine, so now you're being too specific. What we're talking about are the specific rules that determine the dimensionality of one's understanding and ability to metabolize a specific IE, and these rules govern the ability to understand, create and relate to the rules you speak of.
> 
> So if we do it like a box, first we have personal Ti rules at the core, but outside we have the rules of dimensionality. As an analogy, everyone can spring to varying degrees; some cannot sprint at all and some are great sprinters. However, how capable you are at sprinting is determined by your genetics, overall physique and interest in sprinting as an activity. You're talking about one's ability to sprint in general, whether some people are good at sprinting or bad at sprinting, but I (and arguably to_august) am talking about the rules that governs people's ability to sprint in the first place.
> 
> ...


This talk of the dimensionality having rules is what I was saying. Your description of it as more related to capability, but in this case is unnecessary. I considered it in the same way, but with the capability being linked to the ability to perceive the rules. Consider the same example, wherein that person is incapable of seeing that they are never going to be a wonderful sprinter. This incapability to see the rules, to see how capabilities differ between people, is lower dimensionality as I was describing it. The imperception is intrinsically linked to what is going on in lower dimensions, and I would argue has more to do with it than raw strength. Strength is nice, but I think that is more closely linked to genetics and specific expression of traits than to the processing of information elements.

I, too, am talking about the rules that govern the function in the first place. I know how to reword it now - I am saying that a 4D understanding of the function understands the rules that the function carries, and everything less than 4D carries a less nuanced or even nearly absent understanding of the function.



Entropic said:


> See my sprinter analogy. You're not breaking Ti rules with Fe, you are breaking Ti rules with Ti due to poor awareness of Ti beyond a certain dimension.


Semantics. If you break Ti rules with Ti as an Fe type, the effect is the same as saying it the other way, and this fails to cover that it is precisely because of Fe that the Ti rule was broken, because Fe and Ti are linked in the respect that they are. No, it is because of Fe's dominance in the given individual's psyche that Ti rules are broken, with actions taken for Fe reasons. Saying that the Ti rule is broken by Ti is obvious because Fe doesn't even perceive Ti in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that it is Fe that caused the situation to occur in the first place due to the dimensional difference. Disagreeing and saying that is actually Ti causing the difference because of the root cause of its low dimension is saying the exact opposite approach to the same conclusion. This interrelationship is given, so I keep skipping over it, which is generating a lack of clarity, and leading to misunderstandings. That's my bad, sorry.



Entropic said:


> Only Ti can create an awareness of Ti and therefore only Ti can break its own rules. When a 1D Ti type goes, "I have the right to change myself on a whim whenever I want", they do that precisely because their Ti is 1D. 1D Ti yields 1D Ti results. 1D Ti is not capable of being constantly consistent and it does not care for it; it is idiosyncratic because it is 1D. It may rigidly apply a certain rule across a certain context in another situation and then in exactly the same situation later drop it entirely and exchange it for a very different rule. That's not Fe overriding Ti rules, but that is having a poor sense of rules in the first place.


Agreed, except that it is ALSO because Fe is 4D, and it is the high dimensionality of Fe that leads to the drive to perform those actions that are 1D Ti just as much as it is 1D Ti that leads to the action. The rules are not entirely separate, because functions do not exist in vacuum. The *rules* by which functions operate may exist in vacuum, but the function's activation and the net causes of a given action do not.



Entropic said:


> Using the word "override" is just fine in this situation, imo, because one takes focus or prominence over the other. I think your point was clearer when you used the word "override" than "reprioritize", because the latter suggests some kind of re-arrangement functioning, meaning there was a set list of how things ought to be done and this was somehow replaced with another list that became the new norm. The word "override" doesn't carry the connotation that the new arrangement is the new norm, but suggests that the default was simply temporarily changed.


OK.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> No, it is because of Fe's dominance in the given individual's psyche that Ti rules are broken, with actions taken for Fe reasons. Saying that the Ti rule is broken by Ti is obvious because Fe doesn't even perceive Ti in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that it is Fe that caused the situation to occur in the first place due to the dimensional difference. Disagreeing and saying that is actually Ti causing the difference because of the root cause of its low dimension is saying the exact opposite approach to the same conclusion. This interrelationship is given, so I keep skipping over it, which is generating a lack of clarity, and leading to misunderstandings. That's my bad, sorry.


What you're saying here makes sense, but it is different from your initial claim I decided to correct. There's quite a difference between saying that high-dimensional Fe knows how to bend Ti and saying that concerns of high-dimensional Fe are pursued before low-dimensional Ti ones.

I can think of an example like, Fe ego writes a story and pays all of their attention to depiction of an emotional angst of the characters overlooking the logical consistency of the story. Yes, Fe ego is doing their Fe stuff and doesn't pay much attention to Ti, but there's no knowing about how to bend Ti or how to acceptably adjust logicality of it present.



> Where we diverge is that I do not believe, and thus disagree with the model itself, that conscious/unconscious is the correct way to term this aspect. I do believe that one can become conscious of their "unconscious" functions. From my observations, this consciousness is short term. Much as you say an Fe Ego will not feel right if they go against Ti, I say that the valued functions will resonate into consciousness at one point or another. Such as noting, after the fact perhaps, that you have made an error in that function.


I think that conscious/unconscious terms shouldn't be taken that literally as something that is totally conscious vs something that is totally unconscious. It works more like a spectrum of how conscious you are of any given information. Varying from Ego information person permanently monitors, pays attention to, observes and processes to Id information that is paid almost no attention to and comes off as automatic. It follows form the way blocks and model works, at least.

You can imagine it like sitting in a cafe full of people on a tiny island. You sit and watch with most of your attention being on what is going on in the cafe: people talking loudly, waiter asking you to make an order, examining the menu, your phone ringing, someone spilling juice on your laptop. That's quite a busy place that draws most of your attention. Outside the window you can hear somewhat muted sounds of cars beeping, heels clattering, occasional police sirens and dogs barking. This is business quarter that surrounds the cafe. Sounds are pretty distinct, but they are not in your immediate concern until you actually leave the cafe and walk out, and now you're sitting inside, separated from everything that happens out there by the cafe walls. From the distance you can occasionally hear fragments of music and laughter, or at least you think it must be music, since the sound is barely distinguishable, but you're sure something very interesting is going on in the place from where the sound comes. This is the sound of entertainment quarter surrounding the business quarter and the cafe. And lastly, sound of the waves sweeping shores of an island. You're not even sure if you really hear it, cause it's more like a background white noise, unchanging and persistent, accompanying everything that is going on, but to which you pay almost no attention to as usual.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

To_august said:


> What you're saying here makes sense, but it is different from your initial claim I decided to correct. There's quite a difference between saying that high-dimensional Fe knows how to bend Ti and saying that concerns of high-dimensional Fe are pursued before low-dimensional Ti ones.
> 
> I can think of an example like, Fe ego writes a story and pays all of their attention to depiction of an emotional angst of the characters overlooking the logical consistency of the story. Yes, Fe ego is doing their Fe stuff and doesn't pay much attention to Ti, but there's no knowing about how to bend Ti or how to acceptably adjust logicality of it present.
> 
> ...


*The expression * field of consciousness' has but recently come into vogue in the psychology books. Until quite lately the unit of mental life which figured most was the single ' idea/ supposed to be a definitely outlined thing. But at present psychologists are tending, first, to admit that the actual unit is more probably the total mental state, the entire wave of consciousness or field of objects present to the thought at any time; and, second, to see that it is impossible to outline this wave, this field, with any definiteness.

As our mental fields succeed one another, each has its centre of interest, around which the objects of which we are less and less attentively conscious fade to a margin so faint that its limits are unassignable. Some fields are narrow fields and some are wide fields. Usually when we have a wide field we rejoice, for we then see masses of truth together, and often get glimpses of relations which we divine rather than see, for they shoot beyond the field into still remoter regions of objectivity, regions which we seem rather to be about to perceive than to perceive actually.

The important fact which this 'field' formula commemorates is the indetermination of the margin. Inattentively realized as is the matter which the margin contains, it is nevertheless there, and helps both to guide our behavior and to determine the next movement of our attention. It lies around us like a magnetic field/ inside of which our centre of energy turns like a compass-needle, as the present phase of consciousness alters into its successor. Our whole past store of memories floats beyond this margin, ready at a touch to come in ; and the entire mass of residual powers, impulses, and knowledges that constitute our empirical self stretches continuously beyond it. So vaguely drawn are the outlines between what is actual and what is only potential at any moment of our conscious life, that it is always hard to say of certain mental elements whether we are conscious of them or not.

*-William James

When people ask questions they are pulling you in a direction. You pulled me East. Doesn't mean I am East just because East is all one can understand or recognize. That is just one field that happened to manifest itself at one time.

Jung's ideas are rooted in a conservation of energy mindset. It is all there. Emotional energy never goes away, it is just transferred. And thinking and feeling are like a bicep and tricep. You can't use both at the same time. You can't flex and extend your arm at the same time. When one works, another has to rest. These strict dichotomies. James has a psychologically where things are externally related. Same thing with directions. You are not any direction. Sometimes you are moving in a certain direction but you are never actually that direction. And to trap a person in a certain direction, to freeze them there, is wrong.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

To_august said:


> What you're saying here makes sense, but it is different from your initial claim I decided to correct. There's quite a difference between saying that *high-dimensional Fe knows how to bend Ti* and saying that concerns of high-dimensional Fe are pursued before low-dimensional Ti ones.
> 
> I can think of an example like, Fe ego writes a story and pays all of their attention to depiction of an emotional angst of the characters overlooking the logical consistency of the story. Yes, Fe ego is doing their Fe stuff and doesn't pay much attention to Ti, but there's no knowing about how to bend Ti or how to acceptably adjust logicality of it present.


Ah I see. I was and wasn't saying that. I am claiming that high dimensional Fe Egos know how to bend the rules that their own Ti tells them (but not the rules that a stronger and more capable Ti tells that Ti person). So a Ti Ego sees Fe Egos "go against" Ti in a sense, by not upholding the same standards. Fe Ego is bending Ti in the aggregate sense, but the Fe Ego won't see it that way. 

If I have been inconsistent at any point I don't think I noticed it. I do know I have not been clear, either in my head on how exactly to explain, or in text here. And I do know I have misunderstood at least twice.

I hope I am not being irritating. Please let me know if you guys would prefer to drop it.



To_august said:


> I think that conscious/unconscious terms shouldn't be taken that literally as something that is totally conscious vs something that is totally unconscious. It works more like a spectrum of how conscious you are of any given information. Varying from Ego information person permanently monitors, pays attention to, observes and processes to Id information that is paid almost no attention to and comes off as automatic. It follows form the way blocks and model works, at least.


I agree, this is how I view it as well. It isn't really conscious/unconscious per se. 



To_august said:


> You can imagine it like sitting in a cafe full of people on a tiny island. You sit and watch with most of your attention being on what is going on in the cafe: people talking loudly, waiter asking you to make an order, examining the menu, your phone ringing, someone spilling juice on your laptop. That's quite a busy place that draws most of your attention. Outside the window you can hear somewhat muted sounds of cars beeping, heels clattering, occasional police sirens and dogs barking. This is business quarter that surrounds the cafe. Sounds are pretty distinct, but they are not in your immediate concern until you actually leave the cafe and walk out, and now you're sitting inside, separated from everything that happens out there by the cafe walls. From the distance you can occasionally hear fragments of music and laughter, or at least you think it must be music, since the sound is barely distinguishable, but you're sure something very interesting is going on in the place from where the sound comes. This is the sound of entertainment quarter surrounding the business quarter and the cafe. And lastly, sound of the waves sweeping shores of an island. You're not even sure if you really hear it, cause it's more like a background white noise, unchanging and persistent, accompanying everything that is going on, but to which you pay almost no attention to as usual.


This example sounds about right to me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Fenix Wulfheart

It may come across as nitpicking semantics to you, but that actually makes a world of difference in how we understand and interpret not only what you mean, but also the theory in itself. Especially with regards to theoretical discussion, clarity is very important and being able to keep to the distinctions as they are defined helps to provide that clarity. 

Putting it this way: A person cannot break something that is already broken, if that makes sense? You cannot break a rule when you were unaware of the rule existing in the first place. Part of intertype with regards to dimensional theory concerns how other people can point this out to you, that you indeed did break a rule you were unaware you actually broke. 

But it doesn't mean that you, in your own psyche, broke a rule, which is what you are saying is actually occurring. Awareness of the rule being broken makes a big difference in how we understand the context of this discussion. You're mixing up cause and effect; it is not Fe that causes Ti rule breaking, but it is poor Ti, again. Only Ti can Ti, only Fe can Fe and our psychic dispositions makes us strive towards developing skill and awareness in one area but not another. 

In keeping the discussion clean, one needs to adhere to these definitional differences where Fe and Ti are their own respective objectives with their own respective properties. They do interact and can do so in the psyche of a person and while I understand what you are trying to say, it is simply not accurate or a correct way to formulate the logical outcome of things. 

You are positing Fe and Ti as a pole that are a part of the same object so one can move along the pole and eventually end up in Ti or Fe land, depending, but with regards to how socionics metabolism works, Ti and Fe are not on the same pole but they are two different poles. 

I need to go now, but I hope this makes it clearer. 

The biggest issue with how you posit things isn't necessarily the concept but that you are not properly adhering to the definitional boundaries of what things are in socionics. Being fuzzy may be fine in other systems that are less delineated and clear in their expressions, but socionics strives towards definitional clarity more than most systems, and this clarity suggests that the way you phrase it is simply not quite right.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Ah I see. I was and wasn't saying that. I am claiming that high dimensional Fe Egos know how to bend the rules that their own Ti tells them (but not the rules that a stronger and more capable Ti tells that Ti person). So a Ti Ego sees Fe Egos "go against" Ti in a sense, by not upholding the same standards. Fe Ego is bending Ti in the aggregate sense, but the Fe Ego won't see it that way.


Still nope. I was referring to Fe and Ti in the framework of a type of the same one person as well. Fe not upholding Ti standards is not bending Ti rules but just having poor Ti. Bending rules of any kind requires a) awareness that rules exist, b) knowledge of these rules, c) ease at applying those rules, d) ability to get creative about the rules and as a result bend and change them the way you see may fit according to situation or other relevant circumstances. 1D-2D IEs can't do it. If they think they can it's probably just erroneous self-perception, which is particularly characteristic of 1D IEs. Due to inability to compare one's own understanding to norms, they may think they can do whatever the hell they want and thus are very skillful at that given IE, while to high-dimensional IEs of the same kind it's pretty obvious that this confidence is quite far away from the truth.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

"You are positing Fe and Ti as a pole that are a part of the same object so one can move along the pole and eventually end up in Ti or Fe land, depending, but with regards to how socionics metabolism works, Ti and Fe are not on the same pole but they are two different poles. "

No, Fe and Ti are separate poles but the TIM looks at an area within the space between the two, which forms a triangular shape with more area on the side of the function higher in the psyche and a blank spot near the higher dimension area of the low dimension function; within that blank spot perception/cognition is not occurring, that is the blind spot. I'm talking about the space between the two and what that ends up looking like and how I perceive that space to look, as formed by the rules carried by those poles. So referencing back to the pole itself and how the pole looks objectively is not addressing the impact on actions and mental processing of that area that factors for one pole more than the other. Nor is it addressing the entirely separate area that is governed by the opposite type that is focusing on a separate area generated by prioritizing the opposite pole. And so different areas are invisible to different types despite looking at the same reality, because the aspects within that space that are being looked at differ.

And no, that doesn't mean I am saying I think someone can use a low dimensions function to perceive the higher dimension content of that same function, except insofar as I believe you can catch glimpses of it, mostly in the sense of being helped with it. Instead I refer to the shared space generated by the functions working in tandem, hence one overriding the other. That blank space in this example could be said to be generated by the very lack of focus on the other, lower function.

I also lack time. I'll try to formulate a better response later.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Curi said:


> Anyway, sorry I'm getting back on track now to my mom. I read both the 1D and 2D articles (I could only read them on my phone for whatever reason) and I think she's 1D with 2D Te? Whenever someone tries to explain to her, she tends to rush us which corresponds to the "feverish" aspect of it and then accuses of us not explaining it properly to her. Going off that thought, even when we do the same logic over and over again, she kind of disregards it until someone not in the family explains it to her and then all of a sudden she "understands" it. It's like she cannot assess the logic herself at all and she doesn't trust us at all for whatever reason... But she trusts this new source and they explained the same thing, so why not believe it? Is that 2D Te with the Norms aspect of it? She has another source to believe and all of a sudden the logic is conventional(?) and I can use it! Actually reminds me of this post in a way about whether or not someone likes the input or the source. But I might be wrong and misunderstanding things.


It depends on what you're trying to explain to her. It would be poor Ti if you were trying to explain logical relationships.

Her not being responsive to your explanations and explanations of the family may be connected with that she values logic different than that of yours and your family. Maybe the other person succeeded at explaining things to her the way her Super-id accepts and understands. Te logic can be unsatisfactory for Ti valuers and vice versa.



> One example of this was when we were trying to explain why it was illogical for her to believe the cold actually caused sickness (I hope I don't have to explain why this is wrong... ._.). I got particularly ill-tempered about it because I'm not as affected by the cold as her (so we had different definitions of "cold") and in mild weather she would try to make me keep track of the coat unnecessarily because she thought I was going to get sick. Later that week, my dad asked the question during dinner time with his co-workers and they all laughed about it and explained the logic and then my mom stopped bothering me about it.


Hmm. Not sure if it's related to logic per se. Can be poor Si as well, depends on why she behaves the way she does. Maybe she can understand only her own body perceptions and has no clue that others may perceive cold differently, or maybe she had bad experiences with cold weather and can't let go of negative past experiences. It will be poor Ti if she really based cold-sickness relationship on logic and her behaviour stems from faulty logical linkage rather than other factors.



> I/nobody in the family haven't gotten anyone to explain to her why she should stop using bottled water to water plants and why filtered water from a refrigerator will not kill you. Goals in life. Such a waste of plastic and money.
> 
> Also conspiracy theories. She projects logic based on very little information so she over extrapolates her data to match how she feels about the person.


Then again, it's important to know _why _she does what she does. I can make guessing but that would be imagining stuff rather than saying something helpful concerning her type.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I'm not really seeing how one can take the working components out of the system, analyze them outside the context of the system, and then fit them back into the system, without that breaking the system. That's part of my problem.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Curi said:


> Anyway, sorry I'm getting back on track now to my mom. I read both the 1D and 2D articles (I could only read them on my phone for whatever reason) and I think she's 1D with 2D Te? Whenever someone tries to explain to her, she tends to rush us which corresponds to the "feverish" aspect of it and then accuses of us not explaining it properly to her. Going off that thought, even when we do the same logic over and over again, she kind of disregards it until someone not in the family explains it to her and then all of a sudden she "understands" it. It's like she cannot assess the logic herself at all and she doesn't trust us at all for whatever reason... But she trusts this new source and they explained the same thing, so why not believe it? Is that 2D Te with the Norms aspect of it? She has another source to believe and all of a sudden the logic is conventional(?) and I can use it! Actually reminds me of this post in a way about whether or not someone likes the input or the source. But I might be wrong and misunderstanding things.


I thought this reminded me of something to do with Te. Does this sound at all right?


> That is manifested as a skepticism and dislike for basing your beliefs, arguments, and actions on external sources of information. For instance, a SEI will rather trust the expertise of someone who seems to have hands-on experience, even if limited, than of someone who demonstrates to have read many books on the same subject. IEIs will base their opinions and views on their own personal insights and be, again, skeptical of "second-hand" factual information that contradicts it. "Don't trust everything you read" is a typical sneer of this function, especially when applied to sources of information otherwise seen as neutral and reliable, such as encyclopedias and handbooks. Another manifestation is a dislike for dealing with issues involving efficiency, productivity, and factual accuracy of statements made; statements are made according to input from other functions, not from double-checks against external facts which are seen as of lesser relevance to the issue at hand. Types with this function lack confidence in their ability to find relevant information in outside sources.


It might be she accepts it from someone with experience rather than just stating facts? (I'm not 100% sure on that, as I don't know what the other person said.)


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Curi said:


> Thank you ^^
> 
> Sorry I went on a rant about humor:
> 
> ...


This sounds like Ti against Te I think?
She's accepting a fact that suits her idea of the cold - the cold makes her uncomfortable and illness makes her uncomfortable and people will tell her that the cold can make you ill, therefore, to her, the cold makes you ill. For you you have the facts that the cold doesnt make you ill, you've read scientific articles and things like that and collected the facts actively, rather than allowing them in because they fit what you believe is right. (I dont know if that makes any sense...)


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Not knowing much about Japanese culture I would possibly ascribe the cold thing to a cultural difference. It drives me crazy too but, like, in Russia I know there are people of probably all types who consider putting on a coat when it is chilly to be of utmost importance, lest you get sick. Makes sense considering how cold Russian winters can be, but it's definitely an overreaction and it seems pretty widespread among Russians. Similar I think to Italians being afraid of having wet hair, or English people being afraid of drafts. I think regardless of type it's really difficult to shake a notion if your whole life you've been hearing that something is bad, will make you sick, etc. and everyone around you behaves the same way. Makes sense for biological reasons (like working with a woman with Alzheimer's, that was one of the few things that stayed in her mind - she had song lyrics and early 20th century rules for 'what will make you sick' down pat, so I think that kind of information gets stored in a different, possibly more instinctual/difficult-to-shake part of the brain (you can't logic your way out of remembering song lyrics). Just off the fly, again having no idea how the Japanese treat the cold, this would be my guess for the cold thing, probably not super type related and I'd guess the self-preservation instinct in Enneagram over anything else.


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

To_august said:


> It depends on what you're trying to explain to her. It would be poor Ti if you were trying to explain logical relationships.
> 
> Her not being responsive to your explanations and explanations of the family may be connected with that she values logic different than that of yours and your family. Maybe the other person succeeded at explaining things to her the way her Super-id accepts and understands. Te logic can be unsatisfactory for Ti valuers and vice versa.
> 
> ...


Hm. Thank you for the response and I've thought about it but... I don't think I can always answer why because I'm not her so I'm going to lay this to rest (I could continue as best as I could but I've lost interest and typing my mom wasn't my original interest in this thread and you satisfied my original question several page back XP). (thank you to both @Tad Cooper and @owlet for the responses). 

However this thread/reading the discussion above has prompted more questions which you are definitely not obligated to answer. ^^

> Does function dimensionality have a linear relationship in terms of strength? For example, if 4D was on top of the stairs, and then 3D was on the step below it and etc would all the spaces between the steps be equal? I'm getting an impression (in general) that the difference between 3D and 2D is much greater than the difference between 4D and 3D. 

> Also Entropic (or someone else) mentioned a concept about 2D Ti conceding to 4D Ti but Fenix explained earlier to me that dimensionality isn't about about being objectively good at your IE but how much you can relatively activate the function within yourself? If someone with 4D has off the wall Ti wouldn't even a 2D Ti be able to challenge/not concede to that 4D Ti's explanation? Or couldn't someone with 2D who is much older than someone with 4D objectively trump their logic due to their experience? 

> Also curious about Te (because you be Te-base): If a Te ego is relatively unambitious, could they still be efficient about getting their work done and then laze around all day and see that as the optimal usage of their time? Could a Te user see Te's judgement, but go "nah, I don't have the will to follow it. I know it's the best advice but meh." (in a much serious manner of course)
> Follow up: it says Te is productive about its goals. Is there anything characteristic about these "goals" or can they be anything? Could that be a source of type confusion with someone who does not have stereotypical goals (maximize happiness was given to me as an example) or aren't conventionally productive? Someone explained this to me fortunately(?) but I want to see your input as well.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Curi 



> > Also Entropic (or someone else) mentioned a concept about 2D Ti conceding to 4D Ti but Fenix explained earlier to me that dimensionality isn't about about being objectively good at your IE but how much you can relatively activate the function within yourself? If someone with 4D has off the wall Ti wouldn't even a 2D Ti be able to challenge/not concede to that 4D Ti's explanation? Or couldn't someone with 2D who is much older than someone with 4D objectively trump their logic due to their experience?


Dimensionality theory has to do with ability to metabolize information which is different from being skilled at a particular task. Anyone can build up skill because the basic dimension is experience so with sufficient experience, anyone can be good at using a particular IE. However, it doesn't mean that you understand that IE very well outside of the contexts of which you are familiar.

The biggest difference between dimensions is one's ability to be flexible and be able to express that IE in a wide variety of contexts. Someone with 2D could trump the logic of 4D, but only within a field that they are familiar with and have experience of, and they will only trump said logic based on the norms that they know. As soon as they are placed in a different context the inflexibility of 2D will become apparent. 

In general, I would say that dimensionality shows itself better in situations that are new to a person in that people with low dimensionality will have issues adapting whereas someone who has a higher dimensionality will not.


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

@Entropic thank you for the explanation/qualification; I was thinking about IEs the wrong way and now it makes sense.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic's explanation is excellent as usual when it comes to Dimensionality. Go with that Curi XD


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Entropic's explanation is excellent as usual when it comes to Dimensionality. Go with that Curi XD


I think I want another real life example of this. Go get into another argument~


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Entropic's explanation was perfection! I just wanted to add this, which I found here.



> *One-Dimensionality (1D)* – Very Weak. We can only use these kinds of information at the most basic and rudimentary level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Also with this explanation about placement:


> *Ego
> 
> *
> *1*
> ...


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Curi said:


> I think I want another real life example of this. Go get into another argument~


Psh. Please. ^^


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Curi said:


> > Does function dimensionality have a linear relationship in terms of strength? For example, if 4D was on top of the stairs, and then 3D was on the step below it and etc would all the spaces between the steps be equal? I'm getting an impression (in general) that the difference between 3D and 2D is much greater than the difference between 4D and 3D.


Hmm. I can't say whether the difference is bigger, less or identical, these descriptors are too vague, and I don't think that's the point of dimensionality progression. The difference in processing of information elements is apparent enough to be able to develop dimensionality theory, draw boundaries between the dimensions and set definitional requirements to which any given IE's capacity should be be compared with.



> > Also curious about Te (because you be Te-base): If a Te ego is relatively unambitious, could they still be efficient about getting their work done and then laze around all day and see that as the optimal usage of their time?


Sure. Ambition and efficiency are not interdependent so Te ego can definitely be efficient with things they do when the do them and not be ambitious. General optimal usage of time is more of a concern for Gamma where Ni is valued, Delta STs are more concerned with efficiency in conjunction with quality and less emphasis on time. LSE has probably the most potential to be concerned with time issues but it's done in a negative way due to having 1D Ni. They can be too early or too hurried with tasks they do, or too worried that they won't make it on time and try doing everything ahead of time and so on. There must be vast majority of other manifestations. All 1Ds are glitchy in unique personal ways. So in this way yes, Te ego (namely LSE) can feel guilty they don't use their time efficiently but it's due to weak Ni rather than because they are Te base. Such Ni problems are practically a non-issue for SLIs though who's Ni is normative and thus relatively fine.



> Could a Te user see Te's judgement, but go "nah, I don't have the will to follow it. I know it's the best advice but meh." (in a much serious manner of course)


Absolutely. Why not? I definitely don't think someone is compelled to follow any advice no matter the valued IEs. There is always more to situations than valued IEs overlap. It would also depend on Te dimensionality of a Te user, for example Super-id Te will have more appreciation for high-dimensional Te help than say two Te egos neither of which don't experience troubles with processing Te information.



> > Follow up: it says Te is productive about its goals. Is there anything characteristic about these "goals" or can they be anything? Could that be a source of type confusion with someone who does not have stereotypical goals (maximize happiness was given to me as an example) or aren't conventionally productive? Someone explained this to me fortunately(?) but I want to see your input as well.


Yes, goals can be anything. Or there can be no goals at all and Te ego can be productive just with things they currently do. Speaking of myself, I don't think I have any goals at all. There are just many tasks that I know I have to do and different little projects that exist for the most part in my mind only, but nothing as big as having a goal and a plan to accomplish it. Maximize happiness... is that even a goal? Seems like an attitude to living one's life. I have a full-time job that supplies me with plenty tasks and work to do. Efficiency is definitely on my mind and I'm working out best methods to accomplish what I had to do and do so conveniently and quickly so I'll have more time for new upcoming tasks or free time for myself. Besides that I don't have any deliberate plans or goals or compulsion to be productive. I feel bad at times that time is running out and I'm still very low on a scale of accomplishments and society may call me lazy for that matter, but I try to shake off these thoughts, do things that are interesting to me and enjoy my stay here.


----------

