Do people misunderstand me on purpose? I am only adding to the point stated, and moreover, it's a common point that extroverts interact with the WORLD, not just with people in the world.
I don't blame you; I really do have trouble getting it, but I won't give up! Thank you for the clarifications.
[MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION]: The Berens and Nardi description read the most relatably for me, as in it describes things that have always been there helping me out, whether my level of confidence was up or down. Like life fairies.
A few points, especially this one:
In their thought processes, they often experience a swirl of input all at once. To manage all these nearly simultaneous perceptions, they want to know what is relevant so they can focus their attention—what’s the goal? Then they process the information so fast, they know what is important and what is wanted—they “get it.†Then they want to be off, achieving the goal. They often find it frustrating to have to stay tuned in, while others are delving deeper or going methodically from A to Z.
...look like general ni-se/fi-te things, but honing in on your four is a step! On that point, for just one, what I tend to do when I'm "done" with a discussion is to start looking for small tasks I can volunteer for, because a little motion is better than none. It also sounds like how I study. I'm going to check out more of these authors' work on functions.
The socionics description is a breath of fresh air, although the health and readiness problem I mentioned in the OP came into play as I read..."I remember that from when I was at my best! But it's been so long since I've securely been there..." I'll bookmark it and revisit it as time and treatment goes by, and I do not put pieces in the "reread" box lightly at all. Socionics I've found intimidating, but I want to give it another survey now because of feedback on it like yours.
I have been questioning my extroverted credentials lately, as I'm finally getting comfortable with myself in my life. The man and I were playing with ideas of personality the other night and sharing our observations of each other and I got some interesting input. I may appear more open and extroverted on this site as it's a sort of exercise for me to try and practice BEING more open with others... easier since it's NOT real life. Most people who know me in real life don't even know my last name
As far as I know you from this site, huh. I think he might have a point!
as far as Se having no imagination, that's bullshit. First off, no function operates in a vacuum... where would the
experiences and raw material to base imaginative leaps off of COME from without sensing?
Secondly, have you ever imagined a place you've never been before? The way that the wind feels on your face, the way that the plants or ocean smell, the heat of the sun or the cool feeling from the dark on your face? You used Se to take it in in the first place to HAVE that data to work with... imagination comes alive with sensing, which I think is a frequently forgotten detail... why bother if you can't LIVE
Same applies to writing...
the basis for the experiences, the feel of the room when something happens, what something smells or tastes like... those details that make something REAL to someone else. Those are Se details in writing. Of course in the editing process I'm changing A LOT of things and have gone on a Ti research detour of a lifetime (yay for researching things! wiki walks FTW!
)
One piece of writing that always sticks with me is the description of a dry spell being ended by the entrance of the wet season in Monologue of Isabel Watching the Rain Fall on Macondo... it's by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who thanks to his role in the use of Magical Realism would likely be put squarely into the "Intuitive" category by the forum in general... however, what they'd forget is the way that he can take the details of the sensory experience and make you feel it as if you are there... you can't do that if you've never REALLY lived it... yes, you need to use the intuitive functions, but they're dead bones without the flesh of sensation
It's a hell of a process. I connect mostly because I'm refining my own tricky bastard of a story right now, although this evokes memories of writing and little trade secrets from when I was just a kid.
Also, looked up and read the Gabriel Garcia Marquez piece. Stuart Dybek's "Pet Milk" came to mind when I read it, although Marquez's monologue I found more distilled in subject and loved for that. Both really invite you inside with shapes, textures, the second-to-second fluctuations in temperature along the border of air and skin.
You can look at the use of sensory details in the reverse of how you put them, too: write about a subject most people remember and know, like what rain feels like, and you can draw out and wring those experiences for all they hold, for a terrific range of people. And it doesn't even have to be one such subject at a time, or a single vacation spot from your childhood to the letter. Some teachers take take the phrase "write what you know" so bluntly that way, but what is a fictional setting but an artful arrangement of sensory atoms the author picked up from here, and there, and way over here...? You hear writers say things like "[character]'s house is a blend of three homes I've lived in and a hotel in the Redwoods." "How Jane feels when she is turned to stone is a blend of hundreds of awkward situations I've lived through, the last week of the rainy season at home, and the feel of several sticky substances I've gotten on my hands."
Someone next to me said, "It's a water wind." And I knew it even before then. From the moment we came out onto the church steps I felt shaken by a slimy feeling in my stomach.
The temperature was neither cold nor hot; it was the temperature of a fever chill.