No, I'm not saying that a person who types as e.g. Ni-dom can only do one of these things. What I'm saying is that not everyone will necessarily be doing all that together. Unless it's proven in some way, I don't see how it's necessary.So you only believe that a function has one particular use only? That Ni for instance, only predicts rather than doing that alongside hyper-analyzing events in the past, creating personal integration with conceptual ideas and theories, elucidating incredible amounts of information from scarce data, etc.?
It was just a fictional example, true. But it was reminiscent of some SJ types that have been discussed on this forum before.Also, fictional characters are not people and therefore break the functional tidings in the first place due to the fact that authors use various techniques like vivid imagery, character quirks that are not based out of personality but out of necessity, and nostalgic memories and flashbacks.
It's an interesting idea that one system is the external view and the other one is the internal view, but I did present what problems I see with that.Furthermore, it would seem that you have completely rejected the idea that the two systems do not, in fact, occupy and define the same functions exactly, but instead occupy different perspectives, as if this idea is foreign to you, that the two systems must be defining precisely both the external and internal view of the functions at the same time, when that is evidently not the case.
Which argument do you mean exactly, can you link to it?You still clutch to the idea that Socionics and JCF must be seperate due to the fact that the functions are defined differently when in fact they are defined from different perspectives (reinforcing my belief that you simply took my oversimplification of the perspectives instead of actually reading the argument made in the Beta quadrant thread, which I recommend that you read
I dislike assumptions. No, I always say I can be convinced on whatever with strong enough arguments. If for some reason I still disagree after reading your argument, I will explain why that is and as a response I expect an attempt (from you or whoever I'm debating with) to refute what I said, of course in a logical way. It's possible to arrive to a point where the parties will understand each other's viewpoints fully; not necessarily agreeing, though it's also possible to arrive at agreement eventually.though you have probably already made up your mind and will refute it anyways through some measure
I think I've just provided a less black and white description of my Ji. The lines above.thus making it entirely futile to continue further (another one of Ji's magnificent qualities)).
I got that opinion of yours the first time; but I can see it as an internal mindset too. Si isn't just a lazy ass then, it's a certain kind of attentiveness on whatever way the environment affects the Si user. And it also involves a certain way of responding to that. This is all standard socionics Si.The Socionics Si is, on the contrary, viewed externally, how the Si user presents Si to others (refined by the creative function, of course), so yes, it is actually the external perspective.
I didn't see it as futile, going by the debate guidelines I explained above.I can see how @Zarathustra got pissed off at you now. This debate is practically futile and was unnecessary in the first place.
Yes, I know the two Se's collide there. No disagreement on that one.