Challenging Stereotypes - Se in service of Fi

[Hiraeth]

Thanks for responding back.

Huh, that's interesting. I suppose I could see how the use of metaphor could be viewed as Ne. To me it's taking something abstract (Fi) and relating it to something concrete (a cave), therefore making it more understandable. Also, it's sort of impossible to make thoughts or feelings understandable without using metaphors. Not everyone shares the same thoughts/feelings, but everyone knows what a cave is, and therefore the metaphor allows a point of reference across the board.

I understand where you're coming from, but when you use metaphors like a cave in reference to an abstract concept, it takes a little more effort for someone with a very concrete way of thinking to transfer that metaphor into the actual meaning. For me it just doesn't come as naturally to grasp that, but you seem to have a good understanding of them. When trying to explain anything, my brain would immediately want to express it in a straight-to-the-point manner and it would take a little more effort to conjure up an abstract, metaphorical concept of explaining something. Although, it could be an individual thing and maybe I'm just not able to immmediately process flowery descriptions like that.

I think Ni can be an aha moment but I think in general the aha moment is a misrepresentation of what Ni is. Though obviously an Ni dom or aux would know better. I think Ni is more about filtering and sort of crystallizing. Like for example, the cave metaphor is something I actually see as more Ni than Ne. Because it's taking the concept of Fi and reducing it, crystallizing it into one coherent object related metaphor. From my view, Ne would take Fi and expand rather than sharpen. Does this make sense? But yeah, ISFPs can develop their Ni over time and then have it work with Se to make more sense of the world.

That makes sense. But I've always read that Ni is a function that isn't as familiar to us. However, as I've mentioned, I've also read that it's possible to develop it over time, just not to the extent of the Ni intuitives. But others have different theories on it I guess.

Yeah, I think I just let my own individual weirdness slip in there. Not sure anyone could relate to that part. Sorry about that.

Haha, that's fine.

A lot of the time I feel or know something with certainty but I can't figure out how to say what it is or how even to really describe it. So frustrating.

As already known, I concur.

Anything I write is e6 influenced but I'm not sure I understand how it relates to the cautious side of e6? From my pov, Se gives me a gut understanding of possibilites related to concrete things/actions/whatever. Ne would start with one possibility which you would then expand (using Ne, of course) into multiple different possibilities. But I feel like I start with everything at once and then condense or choose, instinctually in an Se context. To me that isn't Ne, it's Fi-Se-Ni.

So I'm walking in the woods. I see falling leaves, a bird in a tree, I feel the sun on my face, I feel the sun's warmth contrasting with the snow on my feet, I hear the crunch of my feet, etc, because it's limitless. What I can take in is limitless. And I could do anything with all this information. That's possibilities. But because I can't interact with everything at once, I focus on one thing and react or interact. This is sort of a very reductive way of viewing it but I hope it helps this make more sense rather than being more confusing.

I was thinking that e6 would make someone think of all possible scenarios in order to prevent them from making a dangerous move that could affect their safety, but the example you gave at the bottom clears my misinterpretation.

I think ISFPs can be very idealistic, as idealism seems to be an Fi thing. I can't say I really fantasize about the past, though I do have a fixation on it which may or may not be type related. But yeah, I envision future events too.

Okay. I was just curious because INFPs are the ones associated with being idealistic, while ISFPs are supposedly more in the moment and not fixated on future/past events as much.

I'm not that practical either, though I used to think I was way less practical than I actually am. I really only like discussing things that feel relevant in some way. It's sort of like only wanting to discuss things that are practically useful.

That was one stereotype that always bothered me about ISFPs. I never felt that topics needed to have a practical use of some sort. Maybe I'm just weird.

That's interesting, because to me what you described with the tree that branches out is Ne and taking the main idea and breaking it down is Ni.

I was referring to ISFPs and how they are usually focused on the smaller details that can perhaps lead them to the big picture over time, but from an "aha" moment, as I have always assumed that tert-Ni was something that manifests randomly rather than something that we can control in order to work alongside Se. Now that I think about it, the way I described it sounds more like Ne, but I don't think I am an INFP due to being more concrete in thinking overall and having a good grasp on details.

No need to apologize, thanks so much for writing this. I think it's pretty clear the issue is differing opinions on what Ne and Ni are. I don't mind being thought of as INFP, as I consider myself pretty balanced in regard to S/N, but I think further discussion on Ne vs Ni would probably clarify a lot of things for a lot of us.

I agree that MBTI is seen from many different points of view. People still get in arguments over what they think is right and vice versa. I think it's common for a person who is close on the S/N or T/F spectrum to get confused over their type, since their functions would be pretty balanced. You know yourself, and if you feel that you resonate with ISFP the best, then that is your type.

 

[magpie]

I understand where you're coming from, but when you use metaphors like a cave in reference to an abstract concept, it takes a little more effort for someone with a very concrete way of thinking to transfer that metaphor into the actual meaning. For me it just doesn't come as naturally to grasp that, but you seem to have a good understanding of them. When trying to explain anything, my brain would immediately want to express it in a straight-to-the-point manner and it would take a little more effort to conjure up an abstract, metaphorical concept of explaining something. Although, it could be an individual thing and maybe I'm just not able to immmediately process flowery descriptions like that.

Out of curiosity, will you describe Fi right now in your natural straight to the point manner? I'm interested to hear how it can be described without the use of metaphor.

That was one stereotype that always bothered me about ISFPs. I never felt that topics needed to have a practical use of some sort. Maybe I'm just weird.

Or we could have different definitions of what constitutes practical. This convo we're having right now is an example of a topic I view as practical, in that it's immmediately applicable to my situation. Otherwise I wouldn't be having it.

I was referring to ISFPs and how they are usually focused on the smaller details that can perhaps lead them to the big picture over time, but from an "aha" moment, as I have always assumed that tert-Ni was something that manifests randomly rather than something that we can control in order to work alongside Se. Now that I think about it, the way I described it sounds more like Ne, but I don't think I am an INFP due to being more concrete in thinking overall and having a good grasp on details.

I agree that MBTI is seen from many different points of view. People still get in arguments over what they think is right and vice versa. I think it's common for a person who is close on the S/N or T/F spectrum to get confused over their type, since their functions would be pretty balanced. You know yourself, and if you feel that you resonate with ISFP the best, then that is your type.

Thanks. I'm really no more certain than anyone else about this. I can only describe with certainty what I see in myself and it's up for interpretation what that represents typologically, which is how it works for everyone.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

There can also be a subtle continuum between INFP and ISFP. My mother is probably more ISFP, but I have occasionally wondered about INFP for her. The iNtuitive part of her had some interest in philosophy when younger and she eventually gravitated strongly towards a religion. I can see the Fi-Ni loop in her approach to religion because she desires to know the one clear truth and doesn't look for all the possibilities. She spent her life working with children and was amazing in her perception of their thoughts, feelings, and needs. She is also a bit of an eccentric, planning out her own life, organizing her things in a way that is completely unique. She thrives on the feeling of "out with the old, in with the new", and she was always ready for adventure when younger. We moved around so much we were practically gypsies. My understanding is that all of the SPs are adventure seekers and thrive on new experience. Many love to travel and the introverted versions will even travel alone, but there is an ongoing drive to explore new things in the world.

I think Betty Page is also an ISFP and you can see how she gravitated more towards the Fi-Ni loop later in life when she became more focused on religion. Throughout her life she was naturally adept at sensory expression.
[MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION]
I've also wondered how an ISFP would describe their adeptness at sensory perception. That is something I suspect defines Se doms and auxs - that they take in a lot of details and can process what is happening in the moment better than most because they see it all more readily. This is one reason they are more skilled at interacting in risk taking adventures because they are conscious of everything going on and then can respond. The strongly intuitive person is spacey in the world and just doesn't see everything happening in the moment. What do you think?

 

[erg]

Se makes an ISFP adaptable and open to new perceptions. The Fi-Se-Ni combo makes ISFPS masters at juggling and integrating perceptions, at viewing multiple things from multiple points of view. At understanding others, understanding why they think the way they think, and taking that into consideration, both to accomodate others and to expand their own views. ISFPs are keenly aware of who they are and who they could be, and the possibilities inherent in that.

Hah, you wish. You know that ISFP's (ESI) have Ne PoLR, right?

 

[Hiraeth]

Out of curiosity, will you describe Fi right now in your natural straight to the point manner? I'm interested to hear how it can be described without the use of metaphor.

Fi is concerned with internal values and preferences in comparison to Fe, which is based externally through a group setting. That would be my simple, straight-to-the-point way of describing it.

Or we could have different definitions of what constitutes practical. This convo we're having right now is an example of a topic I view as practical, in that it's immmediately applicable to my situation. Otherwise I wouldn't be having it.

I guess I forgot to include my own feelings (Fi) towards a particular topic. That is always taken into account before I decide to do something, so I guess that can be attributed to practicality.

Thanks. I'm really no more certain than anyone else about this. I can only describe with certainty what I see in myself and it's up for interpretation what that represents typologically, which is how it works for everyone.

No problem. I'm still learning and wouldn't consider myself adept at this yet. I still have trouble understanding how I relate to each function, so any bit if clarity helps.

 

[magpie]

[MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION]
I've also wondered how an ISFP would describe their adeptness at sensory perception. That is something I suspect defines Se doms and auxs - that they take in a lot of details and can process what is happening in the moment better than most because they see it all more readily. This is one reason they are more skilled at interacting in risk taking adventures because they are conscious of everything going on and then can respond. The strongly intuitive person is spacey in the world and just doesn't see everything happening in the moment. What do you think?

I suppose in the smallest sense Se for me means that when I walk places in the city, I'm not inside my head thinking about myself or my day or something else. I'm looking at the buildings. I'm noticing the pigeons. I'm looking people in the eyes when they walk by me because I'm curious about them - how they're feeling, what they're doing, where they're going. I'm on the lookout for what's going on around me because I like to feel it. It feels good and it makes me happy and more alive.

People have told me I have overly intense eye contact because I'm always looking people in the eye or at least looking at them. When they look away, I keep looking. This thing happens where I lose all self-consciousness and focus really intensely on someone else to the extent that I lose track of whether I'm acting in a manner that's strange. It doesn't have to be someone I know or even like, it could be a complete stranger.

I find sensations really pleasant and pure. Like in experiencing them in an immediate way, you are getting to the crux of something important. Feeling sun on my face, seeing a rainbow, seeing one brown pigeon in a flock of black pigeons, makes me feel like I'm witnessing something amazing and I just feel lucky.

I sort of go between being an observer or outsider who thinks a lot before they speak and being immediately involved with people to the extent that I lose my filter and whatever I'm thinking comes out of my mouth. These are my two modes of social interaction. If I feel really connected to someone in a platonic way, I'll kiss them or lie on them or initiate some sort of physical contact. I also don't plan what I'm going to say when someone else it talking. If I'm listening to someone, it's natural for me to really listen and take in things like facial expression, body language, etc. People tell me their secrets a lot. Off the internet, I tend not to offer much or any personal information in return because it doesn't seem relevant and it's not what I want out of the interaction. I want to know and connect to the person above anything.

Sometimes I get really overloaded. In new environments, I end up taking in so much that it completely fries my body and I start to physically shake. But when that happens, I can also get huge amounts of work done. Like read two books and write one paper in a day.

I'm also an sx dom though, by the way.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Ne folks concretely experience the world like you say. Sun on face, crisp crunch of snow, the breathing in of what is ... that limitless quality of experience. You talk about it though in a way that underscores how Ne perceives and use words that Se / Ni seldom selects. Your words reveal a thinking pattern that doesn't reduce but expands. Only by necessity Ne condenses, you know? Like, I can't focus on 1000 things, I have to choose. I have to choose to reduce. Continually. And you're conscious of the reduction eh? This speaks far more to Ne, it's in your awareness as are all extroverted functions. Ni is more instinctive, it already knows what will not fit, it's not explicit like Ne, there's no thinking about it in those terms.

But in Ne aux, a helper ... oh yes.

Ni is like toast popping from the toaster. Ni just IS. With Ni in the tertiary, it wouldn't even be something that you ... put to words. It is something that just happens.

 

[Dreamer]

I suppose in the smallest sense Se for me means that when I walk places in the city, I'm not inside my head thinking about myself or my day or something else. I'm looking at the buildings. I'm noticing the pigeons. I'm looking people in the eyes when they walk by me because I'm curious about them - how they're feeling, what they're doing, where they're going. I'm on the lookout for what's going on around me because I like to feel it. It feels good and it makes me happy and more alive.

People have told me I have overly intense eye contact because I'm always looking people in the eye or at least looking at them. When they look away, I keep looking. This thing happens where I lose all self-consciousness and focus really intensely on someone else to the extent that I lose track of whether I'm acting in a manner that's strange. It doesn't have to be someone I know or even like, it could be a complete stranger.

I find sensations really pleasant and pure. Like in experiencing them in an immediate way, you are getting to the crux of something important. Feeling sun on my face, seeing a rainbow, seeing one brown pigeon in a flock of black pigeons, makes me feel like I'm witnessing something amazing and I just feel lucky.

I sort of go between being an observer or outsider who thinks a lot before they speak and being immediately involved with people to the extent that I lose my filter and whatever I'm thinking comes out of my mouth. These are my two modes of social interaction. If I feel really connected to someone in a platonic way, I'll kiss them or lie on them or initiate some sort of physical contact. I also don't plan what I'm going to say when someone else it talking. If I'm listening to someone, it's natural for me to really listen and take in things like facial expression, body language, etc. People tell me their secrets a lot. Off the internet, I tend not to offer much or any personal information in return because it doesn't seem relevant and it's not what I want out of the interaction. I want to know and connect to the person above anything.

Sometimes I get really overloaded. In new environments, I end up taking in so much that it completely fries my body and I start to physically shake. But when that happens, I can also get huge amounts of work done. Like read two books and write one paper in a day.

I'm also an sx dom though, by the way.

This is really beautiful Mags. As others have noted, I think what you describe is Ne. I can't say I have much in depth knowledge over Se, so I could just be identifying with what you're expressing, finding that common ground between Ne and Se perhaps. Ne and Se are both extroverted perceiving functions so in some ways they are also going to look very similar. They both play and explore with the outer world. Everything I have bolded above is something I highly identify with and do myself. Wandering the streets, taking it all in, flipping between observer and participant, and while I DO enjoy getting to know someone deeply as the last in bold, I dive into someone's psyche more for my personal understanding and using that knowledge to better understand humanity on the whole.

Do you remember how I described my world perspective in vent, when you and [MENTION=9627]Xann[/MENTION] were around? I described it as this nebulous. As having this innate sense that everything is interconnected, in a very spiritual sense. The way I conduct myself around people, the way I understand and perceive things, is through this perspective of sensing that I am a part of something greater. I am not some seperate entity that can just come and flow, but something so tied to this overall fabric, that what I do, can change things far more than I could ever imagine. Who you inspire, who you touch, can then go off to inspire others. Everything is a sequence. I don't know this for sure, nor did anyone ever tell me life is this way, I've always just had this innate sense of being with the world. The night sky with all the stars above, is my happy place and where I can feel connected to the world once more should I ever drift from it.

 

[Dreamer]

Oh [MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION], forgot something!

When you described Fi in having this very spatial and very real feel to it, I totally related to that too, TOTALLY. Mine is more a landscape though, bathed in the night sky and bright moonlight (again with those dang stars!) and there is a stream and short waterfall in one area, maybe only about 10' high, open fields of grasses in another area, and in the far distance, though obtainable, is a white shimmering castle. I always just chalked this up to my spatial intelligence being rather high, so I think in terms of 3D, especially when designing buildings. You'd be surprised how many architects do not design or think in 3D.

 

[violet_crown]

...what the hell is that even? Aggravating.

It's the reason we can't have nice things.

 

[Hiraeth]

[MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION] Do you think you relate to the ISFPs in this video at all?

It's very hard to come across ISFPs on video, so I was happy to have found this. I related to the two ISFPs a lot, especially the woman. The main part that made me realize I definitely use tert-Ni is at around 24:40 when he mentions how an ISFP's Ni function peaks most when they are alone. I think this is why it can be easy for ISFPs to end up in Fi-Ni loops when we "introvert" too much and aren't using our Se to experience things. I always notice my Ni comes out at night when I am alone in my own comfort zone. This is generally the best time when ideas come to me. I don't use Ni much when I am around other people because I am more in the moment when I engage with friends, family, etc. I definitely use Fi and Se, while Ni is more of a private function.

It now all makes sense.


However, I can't help but think you are confusing Fi-Se-Ni with aux-Ne. Based on their explanation of tert-Ni in this video, it does seem like a function that occurs more in private than with other people. You seem comfortable using intuition in discussions with people around here. I know you believe you are an ISFP, but I can't help but see Ne in the way you write. You seem very similar to many of the INFPs here.

What [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION] mentioned about tert-Ni being just what it is and not easily explained in words rings true in my case. When someone asks about the meaning of one of my art pieces, I have a difficult time going into detail explaining it. I have the main idea in my head, but I can't find the words to formulate an elaborate narrative. A lot of the time, my art incorporates a bunch of Ne-like jumbled metaphors, but it's extremely burdensome to go into depth talking about them. I don't think an Ne person would have difficulty with that. To me, tert-Ni is very noncommunicative, so I just tell people to interpret my art however they wish. It's much easier that way.

 

[cascadeco]

[MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION] Do you think you relate to the ISFPs in this video at all?

It's very hard to come across ISFPs on video, so I was happy to have found this. I related to the two ISFPs a lot, especially the woman. The main part that made me realize I definitely use tert-Ni is at around 24:40 when he mentions how an ISFP's Ni function peaks most when they are alone. I think this is why it can be easy for ISFPs to end up in Fi-Ni loops when we "introvert" too much and aren't using our Se to experience things. I always notice my Ni comes out at night when I am alone in my own comfort zone. This is generally the best time when ideas come to me. I don't use Ni much when I am around other people because I am more in the moment when I engage with friends, family, etc. I definitely use Fi and Se, while Ni is more of a private function.

It now all makes sense.


However, I can't help but think you are confusing Fi-Se-Ni with aux-Ne. Based on their explanation of tert-Ni in this video, it does seem like a function that occurs more in private than with other people. You seem comfortable using intuition in discussions with people around here. I know you believe you are an ISFP, but I can't help but see Ne in the way you write. You seem very similar to many of the INFPs here.

What [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION] mentioned about tert-Ni being just what it is and not easily explained in words rings true in my case. When someone asks about the meaning of one of my art pieces, I have a difficult time going into detail explaining it. I have the main idea in my head, but I can't find the words to formulate an elaborate narrative. A lot of the time, my art incorporates a bunch of Ne-like jumbled metaphors, but it's extremely burdensome to go into depth talking about them. I don't think an Ne person would have difficulty with that. To me, tert-Ni is very noncommunicative, so I just tell people to interpret my art however they wish. It's much easier that way.

Only time atm to watch the first 25 minutes but I'll say this - 1. I am definitely a selective listener and I admit to totally zoning out / not being able to really focus well if I'm not interested or if the Talk goes on for too long; 2. I really, truly suck at Ne and it's evident, the difference and my complete vacuum of Ne, when I interact with Ne users (I think this includes all Ne users, even Ne inferior, as they have a 'silly' switch/way of going external in intuition, verbalizing and engaging in that manner, playing, *being open to ever-expanding*, which I totally don't have. I always want to condense and hone in. I actually lose patience and become frustrated or find expansion 'pointless', much of the time. Just being honest here ).

 

[Hiraeth]

Only time atm to watch the first 25 minutes but I'll say this - 1. I am definitely a selective listener and I admit to totally zoning out / not being able to really focus well if I'm not interested or if the Talk goes on for too long; 2. I really, truly suck at Ne and it's evident, the difference and my complete vacuum of Ne, when I interact with Ne users (I think this includes all Ne users, even Ne inferior, as they have a 'silly' switch/way of going external in intuition, verbalizing and engaging in that manner, playing, *being open to ever-expanding*, which I totally don't have. I always want to condense and hone in. I actually lose patience and become frustrated or find expansion 'pointless', much of the time. Just being honest here ).

I also can only engage in a conversation if it's something that catches my interest, otherwise I would zone out too. I do enjoy long conversations, but only if I like the topic and if it's something I can contribute to. I may be able to expand on something if I find connections, but on here, I think I find myself honing in more often.

However, since I tend to better understand concrete language over a more complex, metaphorical way of speaking makes it clear that I am indeed an ISFP over an INFP.

 

[Gypsy-Flux]

My take on this is that

Fi – I like what I like, I do what I like. This can be mundane idiosyncratic preferences, values (long-standing values with more of an emotional link, as opposed to being derived from premises or whatever)

Se – Live in the moment to do Fi. I really do live in the moment for the most part, which is not great because I don’t think about my future as much as I should. I’m not, however, as innately spontaneous as a Dom Se would be. I tend to judge my options more I think.

Ni – not gonna lie, I don’t really understand what exactly Ni entails, how it manifests… I can only identify with it insofar as I can’t relate to Ne based on what I’ve read.

Te – what happens to me when I’m stressed (I become a dictator. I relate a lot to the descriptions of this that I’ve seen), I fret over correct procedure, inane details, etc. (happens a lot to me at work). Alternatively, what I wish I could properly harness more because sometimes it seems like my life is going on autopilot.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I wonder if I could be ISFP. I related to a number of things in the video, about zoning in and out, the private feeling of intuition. I wonder if I am more focused on Se - it is involved in most of my activities.

 

[Gypsy-Flux]

I wonder if I could be ISFP. I related to a number of things in the video, about zoning in and out, the private feeling of intuition. I wonder if I am more focused on Se - it is involved in most of my activities.

I don't know if this helps, I'm not an expert on mbti or anything, but the way I see Ne is as the kind of person that says things out loud, in group interaction, that are indirectly related to the present things at hand, but also sound like a complete tangent. The kind of person that can be frustrating for me irl because they don’t get to the point, lol I guess…. idk

 

[Ghost]

The kind of person that can be frustrating for me irl because they don’t get to the point, lol I guess…. idk

Oh, come on. You know you love us.

 

[Gypsy-Flux]

Oh, come on. You know you love us.

lol frustrating love, but love nonetheless

 

[magpie]

If person A views Se the way person B views Ne, that doesn't mean person A and person B are referencing two different things.

Say one person calls a rose a rose, one calls a rose a tree, and one calls a rose a pumpkin. The language used doesn't change the objective object. As long as the person who calls a rose a tree only calls roses trees and calls trees something else, the pattern is upheld and the word for the concept/object/existence doesn't actually matter. The caveat is that you have to understand the other person's wavelength to understand their references and not assume their tree is your tree. If everyone is swayed to calling a rose a tree, the rose becomes a tree while still objectively being a rose. Tree will just be the new way to describe it.

The objective pattern exists. You can only name an objective pattern through subjective interpretation of what is objective.

 

[cascadeco]

If person A views Se the way person B views Ne, that doesn't mean person A and person B are referencing two different things.

Say one person calls a rose a rose, one calls a rose a tree, and one calls a rose a pumpkin. The language used doesn't change the objective object. As long as the person who calls a rose a tree only calls roses trees and calls trees something else, the pattern is upheld and the word for the concept/object/existence doesn't actually matter. The caveat is that you have to understand the other person's wavelength to understand their references and not assume their tree is your tree. If everyone is swayed to calling a rose a tree, the rose becomes a tree while still objectively being a rose. Tree will just be the new way to describe it.

The objective pattern exists. You can only name an objective pattern through subjective interpretation of what is objective.

I understand (I think) what you're saying regarding a word just being a word, and one person's 'purple' sky might be another person's 'blue' sky even if the objective properties of the sky are the same color for everyone (even if they call it something different); or, my favorite concept to think about re word usage is 'God' -
'God' is to one person the universe, to another person it might be the hebrew god, to another person something else entirely, and so on and so on. They might all use the word God, but mean very different things. otoh, one person saying the word Universe might have the same concept in mind as another person saying the word God, but if they just focused on the word itself, they'd never know they were talking about the same thing. So you can have two people using different words to describe the exact same concept, OR you can have two people using the same word to describe two utterly different concepts.

But talking about this thread itself, Se and Ne are supposed to represent separate objective concepts/entities. If one person says Se is Objective Entity A (and entity A has certain properties), and another person says that same Objective Entity A is Ne, then either A is Se, or A is Ne. It's one or the other; it can't be both. I suppose it could be neither, if neither A or B really know what it actually objectively is, and are describing something else entirely. ? But for Ne / Se to be Objective, there has to be some agreed-upon definition on the properties of each -- what distinguishes one from the other. Which seems to be what has been discussed in this thread. Am I missing something or misinterpreting completely what you're saying?