Easy Function Descriptions! Totally legit! Figure out your true type! etc.

[527468]

Ti is wondering if there is a reason and Ne is wondering what the reason is. Quite similar. I think Ti would try to give a logical reason in the process and not just ask the question.

 

[BlackCat]

You're off when it comes to Fi. Cheating is against every grain of my existence, so I would be very angry, I wouldn't want to see myself doing that.

Unless you meant imagining it. I usually imagine everything happening to me then seeing how it feels, so if that's what you meant then sure.

 

[Nonsensical]

Wow, this was really well done, Jeremey. Did you do this yourself? It's impressive, yet very simple, and accurate.

 

[Jeremy]

Wow, that's surprisingly good

The Se/Ne thing doesn't quite fit for me, but that might be a balance issue. Each is probably more accurate the stronger the preference is.

Not to rain on the parade but, "Se: I need to see this for myself." Did I miss something, I thought the person was seeing it directly. If so, then should this not be changed to say how a Se type would respond to witnessing the matter?

You're off when it comes to Fi. Cheating is against every grain of my existence, so I would be very angry, I wouldn't want to see myself doing that.

Unless you meant imagining it. I usually imagine everything happening to me then seeing how it feels, so if that's what you meant then sure.

Again, this is due to my lack of explaining it I think. I meant that Fi bases the decision off of whether the person would take part in the activity themselves or not and feel good about it, not off of whether others would see the activity as "wrong".

For instance, you say that cheating is against every grain of your existence, right? So taking it a step further, would you ever cheat? No, and so the Fi judging function would look at this situation and say "No, I wouldn't." Ne would try to look for reasons first, unless Fi takes over because it is an extremely strongly held value - which it might in your case!

To me, most Fi judgements are based off of that; subconsciously comparing the situation to our personal beliefs and attitudes towards that situation, and going forward from there.

Also, a little disclaimer: I am not a personality typologist or anything, this is just stuff that came to my head, and I don't vouch it as professional or anything of the sort Just seeing what others thought of my ideas Thanks for everyone who has posted so far; if I helped you at all I am happy!

P.S. I am updating the main post with my new descriptions of Se and Ne!

 

[Costrin]

Suggestion of change to Ti: "What is the reason she did that?" or something to that effect. It's not asking if there was a reason, (at least for me) that's assumed as a given that there is one, it's asking what the reason is. So in TiNe, Ti would ask why, Ne would develop a bunch of possibilities, and Ti would discern which makes the most sense.

I'm not really familiar with how TiSe would act though...

 

[Jeremy]

Suggestion of change to Ti: "What is the reason she did that?" or something to that effect. It's not asking if there was a reason, (at least for me) that's assumed as a given that there is one, it's asking what the reason is. So in TiNe, Ti would ask why, Ne would develop a bunch of possibilities, and Ti would discern which makes the most sense.

I'm not really familiar with how TiSe would act though...

Same thing right? Ti would ask why, then Se would take in the data presented and make conclusions based on that evidence, rather than the possibilities presented by the evidence (though tertiary Ni would kick in and start seeing the pattern that was presented by the present data now that it is there). Aspirational Fe would most likely get pissed off and just tell both of them "Hey, what you're doing is bullshit", after the data has been analyzed by the other functions first of course.

 

[Costrin]

Same thing right? Ti would ask why, then Se would take in the data presented and make conclusions based on that evidence, rather than the possibilities presented by the evidence (though tertiary Ni would kick in and start seeing the pattern that was presented by the present data now that it is there). Aspirational Fe would most likely get pissed off and just tell both of them "Hey, what you're doing is bullshit", after the data has been analyzed by the other functions first of course.

Yeah, I really should have known that. A moment of heightened self-doubt. ITPs both make a logical model of how things work, but the thing the model is filled with are different. ISTPs fill it with data, and determine the connections later when needed. INTPs fill it with the connections, and determine later when needed.

At least, I think.

I've been reading up on Socionics lately, so everything is screwed up in my mind.

 

[527468]

Suggestion of change to Ti: "What is the reason she did that?" or something to that effect.

That would be Ne. Like I said, Ti should give the reason. Ti is to come up with reason, where Ne, "what is the reason" is to wonder and give possibility.

 

[Costrin]

That would be Ne. Like I said, Ti should give the reason. Ti is to come up with reason, where Ne, "what is the reason" is to wonder and give possibility.

It does both. It asks, Ne gives possibilities, then Ti determines which it is.

 

[527468]

It does both. It asks, Ne gives possibilities, then Ti determines which it is.

Ti does not both. One with TiSe will look at concrete facts.

"what is the reason"

Or should I say "what could be..."

The word is is so abstract.

 

[Costrin]

Ti does not both. One with TiSe will look at concrete facts.

Well it does for me! Hmmph!

However, the asking is very unconscious. I imagine TiSe will look something like this:

Ti: "Why did she do that?"
Se: "Here are the facts."
Ti: "Based on these facts, I determine it is likely because of blah."

TiNe:
Ti: "Why did she do that?"
Ne: "Here are the possibilities."
Ti: "Possibility B makes the most sense, therefore it is likely that."

imo

 

[527468]

Well it does for me! Hmmph!

However, the asking is very unconscious. I imagine TiSe will look something like this:

Ti: "Why did she do that?"
Se: "Here are the facts."
Ti: "Based on these facts, I determine it is likely because of blah."

TiNe:
Ti: "Why did she do that?"
Ne: "Here are the possibilities."
Ti: "Possibility B makes the most sense, therefore it is likely that."

imo

I thought you were referring Ti to giving possibility. Ok, I agree with what you're saying.

 

[Costrin]

I thought you were referring Ti to giving possibility. Ok, I agree with what you're saying.

Ah, ok. Yay clarification.

 

[527468]

Ah, ok. Yay clarification.

*sarcastic yay, doesn't smile*

 

[heart]

MAybe the Se says "Well I had to see this to believe it!"

 

[Orangey]

Finally a thread that does a coherent job giving a concrete example of the functions (and none of that fence-building business). This seems to make a lot of sense.

 

[beyondaurora]

Pretty cool!

Here's my reaction with my take on the functions:

Se: Oh my god, I'm really seeing this!
Te: This is so f^&*%$ up! Matt has the right to know.
Fi: This is going to kill him. I know it would hurt me to the core.
Ni: Just goes to show...you can't trust anybody!

Hmmm...reverse the Te and Fi, and it looks like an ESFP reaction.

 

[Anentropic IxTx]

All right then... Fe, Ti, Se, Ni - and isn't there some kind of prioritizing system?

 

[nightning]

I'm confused... I don't see any difference between Fe and Te response in your description...

 

[Costrin]

Subtle difference. Fe says it's morally wrong. Te says it "doesn't work that way", but without assigning a moral judgment.

Fe - this will hurt someone, therefore it is bad.

Te - This will not work in continuing the relationship, therefore it is incorrect.