tbecket
New member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2020
- Messages
- 4
/first things first: please, don't be scared away because of the amount of the text - I've really tried to shorten it. It's all an explanation of only one idea anyway, you'll probably be able to look through it quite quickly/
Hi. For a long time, I've been confused regarding which function I have in my function stack - Si, Ni or Ne (as either dominant or auxiliary). When I was thinking about how to present this problem, I came up with an idea of describing how I perceive the literature I usually read. Hope I was able to express myself clearly enough (I unfortunately tend to overcomplicate things), and will be glad if someone can waste a bit of their time to help me with figuring out the unknown function.
So, I've noticed that if a person prefers to read non-fiction or more "reality-based" literature - for example, history, politics or biography, they are usually typed as a Sensor with (mostly) dominant Si (this is undoubtedly a generalization, but I'd like to use it as a starting point anyway). It is usually explained with Si-doms just loooving awful lots of detailed information, especially from the past. I don't really understand this explanation as a person, who herself likes and prefers reading non-fiction, but not quite because of its factual accuracy.
If I were to express myself metaphorically, what I see while reading a, let's say, history book is something like a white sheetof a(= a yet non-existent plot), onto which I'll have to put the details I'll find intriguing and (historically) accurate in order to create my own parallel universe of someone's life or relationships (it's always connected with people since I'm a Feeler), for example. My brain instantly starts imagining a straight line of how the events could develop, the hidden motives of people, or what could be potentially added - the more controversial, the better. Basically, stepping on the field of bare, emotionless facts, you synthesize your own story - that is why I enjoy biographies. It literally feels like arranging the pieces of a puzzle, yet the result will not be a given picture, but the one you're going to invent yourself. Like, if you bought a puzzle and don't yet know what the result would be; the only thing you know that you're undoubtedly going to enjoy its beauty and authenticity.
That's also why I don't like reading fantasy. When I open a fantasy book, it feels like being instantly bombarded with millions of minor details: for example, what are the names of some weird-looking creatures or of various races of living beings (you can laugh at me, but I can't even remember which houses were there in HP besides Gryffindor... something with "Puff"?) - and in the end, those often don't even add anything to the plot itself. Besides, in such fictional universes, everything is usually very well-thought-out, and I feel like there's no place for my own imagination.
The reason for which I can tolerate a big amount of details in history books and not in fantasy books is that in a history book, having to include all the details is not a matter of choice. They just have to be there, so that the author's reliability is not questioned. So, if I'm bored with unnecessary parts, I just skip them. On the other hand, in a fantasy book, the author actually decides whether to describe all the characters or not.
Does this look like something a Si-, Ni- or Ne-user would have in their mind? I mean, which one of them?
Also, if you're already here, thanks for taking your time and reading the whole thing.
Hi. For a long time, I've been confused regarding which function I have in my function stack - Si, Ni or Ne (as either dominant or auxiliary). When I was thinking about how to present this problem, I came up with an idea of describing how I perceive the literature I usually read. Hope I was able to express myself clearly enough (I unfortunately tend to overcomplicate things), and will be glad if someone can waste a bit of their time to help me with figuring out the unknown function.
So, I've noticed that if a person prefers to read non-fiction or more "reality-based" literature - for example, history, politics or biography, they are usually typed as a Sensor with (mostly) dominant Si (this is undoubtedly a generalization, but I'd like to use it as a starting point anyway). It is usually explained with Si-doms just loooving awful lots of detailed information, especially from the past. I don't really understand this explanation as a person, who herself likes and prefers reading non-fiction, but not quite because of its factual accuracy.
If I were to express myself metaphorically, what I see while reading a, let's say, history book is something like a white sheetof a(= a yet non-existent plot), onto which I'll have to put the details I'll find intriguing and (historically) accurate in order to create my own parallel universe of someone's life or relationships (it's always connected with people since I'm a Feeler), for example. My brain instantly starts imagining a straight line of how the events could develop, the hidden motives of people, or what could be potentially added - the more controversial, the better. Basically, stepping on the field of bare, emotionless facts, you synthesize your own story - that is why I enjoy biographies. It literally feels like arranging the pieces of a puzzle, yet the result will not be a given picture, but the one you're going to invent yourself. Like, if you bought a puzzle and don't yet know what the result would be; the only thing you know that you're undoubtedly going to enjoy its beauty and authenticity.
That's also why I don't like reading fantasy. When I open a fantasy book, it feels like being instantly bombarded with millions of minor details: for example, what are the names of some weird-looking creatures or of various races of living beings (you can laugh at me, but I can't even remember which houses were there in HP besides Gryffindor... something with "Puff"?) - and in the end, those often don't even add anything to the plot itself. Besides, in such fictional universes, everything is usually very well-thought-out, and I feel like there's no place for my own imagination.
The reason for which I can tolerate a big amount of details in history books and not in fantasy books is that in a history book, having to include all the details is not a matter of choice. They just have to be there, so that the author's reliability is not questioned. So, if I'm bored with unnecessary parts, I just skip them. On the other hand, in a fantasy book, the author actually decides whether to describe all the characters or not.
Does this look like something a Si-, Ni- or Ne-user would have in their mind? I mean, which one of them?
Also, if you're already here, thanks for taking your time and reading the whole thing.
