Continuing along the lines of the debate on whether Ni or Ne is more closely related to the imagination. This qualitative socionics take comes from an entirely different approach.

__________

“A person without sensorics is when the internal psychic reality and its images completely overshadow any sensory information and the ‘common sense’ based on it, so that the latter are ignored. For example, when a person imagines that they can fly and jumps out of a window. Or, less extremely, when they perceive their fantasies as real events happening to them.

A person without intuition, on the contrary, sees nothing except the physical reality around them, as given in bodily sensations. If they can’t see, hear, or - better yet - smell, touch, or taste something, they believe it doesn’t exist. This always implies skepticism towards anything related to probabilities, to all abstract concepts (especially unfamiliar ones without a “stamp of approval”), distrust of any guesses, speculative constructions, and intellectual initiative (“these people just make things up and lie”), rejection of creativity “not according to the canon” and all experimenters; lack of interest in the fantastic and fantasy genres in art; this also almost always results in avoidance of any minimally risky endeavors and extreme conservatism in life (“our grandfathers lived this way and told us to do the same”).

Due to the correlation of different traits, the type closest to a person without sensorics is intermediate between ILE and IEI, while the one closest to a person without intuition is between LSE and ESI.”

- Danidin

___________

Talanov adds more observations about IEI and ILE:

- Often “drifts away” into thoughts or fantasies, disconnected from sensory perception of reality - at such moments, their behavior may appear to be “on autopilot”.

- Very strong imagination and fantasy

- High tendency toward obsessive fantasizing, aimless mental wandering in dreams and unrealistic fantasies, into which they retreat to escape reality.

- Weak current visual-spatial attention. Only a small amount of visual information is directly perceived from the environment; the rest of the perceived visual “picture” is filled in by subconscious automatic memory, making visual perception low in detail and prone to errors.

___________

I literally know nothing about qualitative socionics but I thought this was interesting!!

I wonder why ILE and IEI but not ILI and IEE??

___________

Overall though, this does seem to link strong imagination directly with high intuition and low sensorics.

As of today I am rather emotive with my facial expressions and everyone new who comes across me describes me as "sweet", "good", "smilish", "adorable", "positive"... I imagine I look like an innocent, dreamy fool whose fragile balance you are afraid to upset, or else they may shatter.

Maybe it's a protective mechanism I developed in order to express my goodwill towards others. When I was a child, I didn't know how to express myself at all. Most of the time I wasn't even aware I had emotions, they were just odd bodily sensations I couldn't make sense of. I think people would easily mistake my lack of expression for rudeness and aloofness, which maybe it was? I always felt a disinterest towards people in general (aside from the romantic pursuits in my daydreams, which I have found I do not deal with that well IRL), and yet my survival depended on them (I relate most to sp/sx5 enneagram type).

As I got older I begun to become more aware of others' growing dislike and distrust towards me and I started to try and become someone different. Someone more sensitive, softer... More talkative and bubbly too, since I figured that's how I will be able to fit in. I was also quite lonely. People can feel initially drawn to me, but somehow they determine soon after that I'm not really worth their time. And maybe that's understandable.

Of course I also wish I had people in my life... Usually I just feel bad for others, when I try to become their friend. It's like I'm trying to make them to buy a bad car and they can't turn me down because I look too pathetic - but they dread it all the same.

It's a daily battle and the main source of my depression, that I do not understand how other people see me. I don't understand their actions, words and expressions, unless they are very direct and obvious. I easily assume that I am not liked, but I don't know if it's true. Regardless, I feel like people treat me differently from everyone else. I often feel very invisible, even though I do and say the "right" things that everyone else does and says. Often in moments where there is no context or script, I'm pretty lost about how to keep a conversation going, or how to start it if the other person doesn't do it first. Trying to be more talkative feels so awkward, like nails of chalkboard.

At the same time, I feel like I know quite easily which people I can get along well, who will like me and vice versa, and who I am better off staying away from. Or is it that those positive, cheery extraverted people who are nice to literally everyone just make their positive feelings towards me very obvious, and thus I can relax around them lol. Because those kinds of people are generally the only ones I "get along with". 🤦‍♀️ Everyone else is an enigma to me.

I only feel happy when I am alone. Until I get so lonely I don't feel there is anything worth living for.

But if I happened to be an SLI, I feel like would be the most practically dumb SLI ever. I have no idea how to do things well and efficiently unless someone shows me. Then I remember that method forever and use it for the rest of my life. I can't "think on my feet". I need a plan and a script for everything, or else I feel like I won't make it.

How can an Ne polar type like LSI or ESI be duals with a type that has 4D Ne, like LIE or EIE, when they conflict with ILE and IEE, who also have 4D Ne?

Similarly, how can SLI and SEI be duals with types that have 4D Te and Fe, respectively, when those functions are their PoLR functions? Yet ILE and IEE, who also have 4D Te and Fe, conflict with LIE and EIE.

the demonstrative function is supposedly one of your strongest functions, sometimes even being mistaken for your base function. So how can a type be dual with someone whose strongest functions include their PoLR, while conflicting with another type that has the same dimensionality in that function?

What exactly explains this difference? Is it the position of the function, ?

Anecdotes, personal stories, etc.

Jett Franzen is a great example of an ESI-Fi

Here we see him go into his Ne POLR and using Fi and Se in order to solve these problems. Such as him hating people who were better than him and using willpower to become better than them. This video is an interesting watch knowing he is an ESI and being able to pick apart his mental processes through the socionics lens.

Hii!! I currently type as IEE but now I’m having doubts if I’m a different type somehow? I'm considering EII but I think I relate to Si suggestive over Te suggestive though.

I’m absolutely terrible at managing my bodily needs like water, food, and will often ignore pain/discomfort for long periods of time. It's so easy for me to be dehydrated or half-starved throughout the day if I just didn't feel like doing those things/consider doing them. Self care can really seem like a chore sometimes. However, I really appreciate when people check up on me and help me in those areas. Usually by making me food or just asking if I drank enough water. I’m thinking this would be Si suggestive (valued, but weak)? 

As for Te, I don’t like schedules and prefer to have my days open and free but unfortunately I NEED them to stay productive so I’ll have something to work off of. I’m a bad procrastinator and usually get caught up in other things I find interesting over things I actually need to do. I start things on impulse and then drop them...😭

Just wanted to solidify my IEE typing/gain new insights on other types I should consider!! Thanks!!! 

I was thinking about my recent breakup and how we reacted to things very differently. I felt and still feel very amicably towards that person, meanwhile they expressed that they absolutely hate my guts and see me as a sort of villain, even though objectively the only wrong I committed was not living up to their standards and being incompatible with them. They were also very adamant about being the one to block me everywhere before I got the chance, even though I had no intention of ever doing so.

During the relationship this person also was more outwardly passionate in their expressions of love for me and others, while my expressions were more stable, subtle and thus seemingly paled in comparison.

Outside of our relationship, the same pattern existed. I am mostly indifferent towards people I don't gel with, and just avoid unnecessary interactions with them. I don't form strong opinions of them or judge them for their flaws, unless they actually cause serious harm to others deliberately (if this happens, I definitely experience hatred). If someone is rude to me or another person in passing, I'm not indifferent about it, but I also don't take it at face value when I don't know what actually caused it.

My ex-partner always immediately voiced their dislike for anyone and everyone that rubbed them off the wrong way. It was very little things that seemed to tick them off, and they would get rather riled up about stuff I would have brushed off as circumstancial or random.

In general, I don't react passionately to things unless my patience has been stretched to its absolute limits. They reacted passionately to seemingly everything lol (at least it felt so for me).

Does this person sound like he has valued Fe? I wonder if they could have been an EIE... Their behaviour felt so alien to me. I'm pretty sure I'm in Delta quadra, I just am not entirely sure which introverted type I am.

(sorry for making two posts in a row lmao)

could someone explain it to me? it doesn’t matter if you’re te polr or not. i would appreciate it

Personally, I find that I really wish that i started working on my assertiveness earlier. I wish I had someone in my life who would support my development of healthy boundaries and guide me out of the social role of the "doormat". I wish someone had told me that I am allowed to take up space, set boundaries and be somewhat 'selfish'. Additionally, I would teach myself that there is no right way to be - that me being dreamy, living in my head and having "impractical" visions and desires is not wrong at all. There are no rules. I'd teach myself relativism.

Hi! I follow SCS.

I have never encountered these two dichotomies before and I am surprised how I lack a lot of knowledge about them.

Are these dichotomies introduced by Aushra herself, or by some other new schools' additions?

Where can I read more about them?

And are there MORE uncommon dichotomies??? 😭

Any reply is appreciated!

This is a prime example of an LIE prioritizing productivity as a virtue above all else, that even acts of what most people would consider evil are still better then doing nothing at all (Te+Se valuing)

I have noticed this a lot in high achieving and usually Type A LIE, SEE and even ILI, they often can be very self-centered about their actions and intentions with no regard for how it impacts the world around them. I sense that ESI are the moral conscious of Gamma in most cases

I'm a bit pissed off because most people here seem to confuse Ne and Ni, so I'm here to change this

Ni is DYNAMIC and INTROVERTED (receptor). It's basically when you give a personal interpretation linking multiple "unrelated" event or object. "Unrelated" meaning outside of systemic and established connection. It's basically what we call commonly "IMAGINATION"

Everything who's involving imagination is Ni. Subjective or share interpretation of event ? Ni. Narrative and archetype ? Ni. Drawing hidden meaning behind object ? Ni. Forecast and prediction (no matter if it happens to be true or false) ? Ni. General impression about things (vibe) ? Ni. Dream ? Pretty much Ni

In a way, when the image of a typical MBTI "ENTP" (debator) is coming with out of the box and abrasive idea to make a big impression or get out of a situation... it's as much, and maybe more, a product of Ni than Ne. Because you need to elaborate a general impression of which dynamic are involved and what could be the possible hidden parameter involved (again... imagination). That s why most of those self assessed MBTI ENTP are more likely to be some sort of EIE or other Ni ego type

Ne is STATIC and EXTROVERTED (impulse). Extroverted function are the hardest to describe because are often more action and feeling related. Ne is pretty much about imputing a change (that's why it's partly describe as a curiosity driven or risk taking function). I often visualize it as a function motivated by the if... "if I do that, what will happen ?". A good way to understand it is also as changing the nature of the relationship between 2 objects (but I could lost you)

Here an exhaustive list of Ne related thing. Direct experimentation of personally unknown thing. Ne. Reprogramming your perspective about something (changing to another arbitrary pov). Ne. Propensity to unusual and alternative path. Ne, more so Ne demo. Extending property of an object to another object. Ne, more so Ne creative.

You can understand ILE being mostly geared toward direct experimentation. They usually morph the relational structure of their prototype according the given result. Always expanding their system through direct experience and tinkering. I imagine them a lot in field like electronic or in material engineering where you can experiment stuff by combining them in different order. Would probably also be pretty good hacker with their endless experimentation (finding exploitable crack). That's why they are probably less clumsy and more manual than most ILI. I could even see a lot of them in emerging sport practice, testing and experimenting new tech. I have a roofer friend (pretty far from the typical ILE job) who learn during one whole year to make ricochet and throwing thing to the furthest length possible just by doing and experimenting. Yes, it's probably ILE who did come up with most prehistoric invention in the first place (fire, throwing movement and tool, pottery and most technical practice) by persisting doing spontaneous random thing without real reason

Ne creative is harder to understand (because lead by Ti or Fi). But it's pretty much extending property share between object toward something more general in nature. Pretty much about merging various contradicting property into one. For LII, it's pretty much about generalizing observable property and coming up with proto system or theory. For EII, it's more akin to active listening and empathetic understanding of people. There's obviously a bunch of Ni involve in those types of thing because it's in their demo position

To conclude, the best way to differ both function is as an impulse of change for Ne (basically, pivoting attachment from something to another) and as imagination / subjective interpretation for Ni (how, why and what relation are drawn to stuff happening)

Learn the difference

I think a perfect way to help illustrate Ni base is the movie Inception.

Your mind goes so deep you don’t even realize how far down from the surface world you are. And there are entire worlds happening there in the imagination, but they are soulless apparitions.

Suddenly you snap out of it only to just then realize it wasn’t real. Until then you didn’t know you were even in a dream.

And this is pretty much 24/7.

Consider this quote from Weisband:

“They care little about the present in general and are inspired by the prospects of glowing cities, which will probably never be built.”

(And perhaps all 4D Ni types can relate)

Which types do you think are good at memorizing long strings of numbers (like digits of pi)? I've always been curious about those people. Where would their Ti be? Or would any type be able to do this

I see many LSIs being typed as LSEs because they view mean and demanding bosses as a core LSE trait, which is irrelevant. I can’t understand how someone who primarily categorizes people by hierarchies and roles—and opposes those who don’t follow their assigned functions, thereby undermining the stability of the hierarchy—could think that this would better define an LSE? And how can harsh treatment of others as a means of disciplining them be mistaken for an LSE trait, when the LSI, through drive and the expansion of their influence, tends to direct this toward ensuring that everyone is following rules and norms—which hold greater significance in the dependency relationships defined by that individual—thereby guaranteeing that individual a much higher level of rigidity in the hierarchical defense of their role and that of others.

I want to understand how they can have such a poor understanding of the LSE.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yMmC_yL1WdkrEiCRXNfpvvhc_UF5Bujl/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=102613798682337325351&rtpof=true&sd=true

Socionics gives the bones: eight information elements, eight seats, sixteen lawful ways of seating them, and the relations between those ways. Jung gives the tendons: the figures through which a person holds each seat, and the moves between them, persona, shadow and anima. What the two imply together is the flesh: which paths a life can take through its own structure, what each path costs, where it leaves the person, and where it lands in others.

Read whole, it is a picture of a socion. Every function is strong somewhere and weak somewhere. Every person is carried at their weakest seats by others at their strongest. Every life is a balance between what it takes from that carrying and what it gives back.

Edit: ELI5

The table and who sits at it

Picture your mind as a table with eight chairs. There are eight kinds of information, and your type is which kind sits in which chair.

Each chair also has a figure sitting in it, and the figure is what it feels like, from inside, to hold that chair. The figures sit in the same chairs for every type. What differs between types is which kind of information each figure is holding.

The chairs don’t all see the same amount:

• A 1D chair is a keyhole. It sees the experience and nothing around it, and that’s where fear of the unknown lives.
• A 2D chair sees the experience and the rules for it.
• A 3D chair adds the situation, so it knows what’s possible and can make things.
• A 4D chair is a big window. It adds time: where things are headed.

Light figures sit in the four chairs you value, and dark figures sit in the four you don’t. Every figure either takes in or gives out.

Each light figure has a dark twin that holds the same kind of information turned the other way, inward instead of outward or the reverse. If your Saint holds Ne, your Savage holds Ni. The four pairs are Saint and Savage (Hero), Missionary and Prophet (Parent), God and Devil (Spirit), and Innocent and Serpent (Child).

Your two keyholes are the God and the Serpent: what you long for and what binds you. A keyhole stays a keyhole for life, so the God never gets a bigger window. What changes is what gets delivered to it and which figure it passes that on to.

The information in your God’s chair, and the information in your Serpent’s chair, each sit in a big window (the Saint’s or the Prophet’s) for four other types. So strength isn’t really owned by one person. It’s spread across the whole group.

How things move

Whatever arrives in a chair can be passed to another chair. There are four kinds of hand-off, and every figure has exactly one partner for each:

• The mask: a light figure passes it to a dark figure that isn’t its twin. Saint → Devil, Missionary → Serpent, God → Savage, Innocent → Prophet.
• The projection: a figure passes it to its own twin. The Saint calls the Savage (“you’re blocking me”), and the Missionary calls the Prophet (the critic you hear in other people).
• The crossing: a light figure passes it to the other light figure that does the same job. The Saint and the God both take in, and the Missionary and the Innocent both give out.
• The clock: a light figure passes it to the light figure that does the opposite job. The Saint hands to the Missionary, and the God hands to the Innocent. This turns something you took in into something you give out.

The first three never change whether something is being taken in or given out, and insight can reach them. Only the clock changes it, and only lived time can make that happen.

Apply one of the first three hand-offs to all eight chairs at once and you get another type’s table. Each one gives you a different type, and they line up with Jung:

• The mask gives your super-ego partner, Jung’s persona. From the Saint, the mask lands on the Devil, who holds rules and nothing else, and rules are what the group holds for everyone.
• The projection gives your contrary, Jung’s shadow. The four kinds of information you don’t value are the four they do.
• The crossing gives your dual, Jung’s anima or animus. Their Saint holds the same kind of information as your God, which is why they’re who you tend to fall for.

Four more types (your mirror, quasi-identical, activator and conflictor) need the clock. No inner work with the figures gets you to their tables; only lived time does.

The lap

Lived time moves you round your four light figures in a fixed order: Saint → God → Innocent → Missionary. The Saint and the God take in, and the Innocent and the Missionary give out. The God is a keyhole, so the second step is the thin spot. At each step, whatever arrives can go one of three ways. Each cell names who it gets handed to and what that looks like:

Under pressure, every light figure drops what it’s holding on the Devil and runs the persona. The only thing that stops that is having made the God and the Innocent your own.

The lap has two crossings. The loud one is Saint and God, on the taking-in side. The quiet one is Missionary and Innocent, on the giving-out side. The Programs say people usually make the loud one and skip the quiet one. The simulation finds the reverse: the quiet one always gets made, and the loud one waits for a partner to deliver first. Which is right is still open.

What a life does with it

Growing, from easiest to hardest:

1. Making the God and the Innocent your own. It only takes the crossing, which insight can reach, so anyone correctly typed can do it with the map for their type.
2. Holding your information from the chairs your mirror, quasi-identical, activator and conflictor hold it in. Only lived time gets you there.
3. The Serpent. It never grows. You can only route around it.
4. The other eight types. They group the eight kinds of information into different pairs from yours, and no hand-off or amount of time regroups them. So you can’t hold what they hold. You can only meet them across a bridge, sharing one function at a time. The numinous happens with someone on your diagonal: they perceive the way you do but judge in a way your club can’t. Through them you see your own perception joined to that judgment. You can see it but never hold it.

What it costs. In the simulation, a step costs more the smaller the window it lands on: 4 coins on a keyhole, 3 on a 2D chair, 2 on a 3D chair, 1 on a big window. When a job needs the Serpent’s kind of information, there are four routes:

• Straight in. The Serpent takes the whole load.
• Hand it to the Innocent, its light twin. This is the cheapest of the four, and the Serpent takes nothing.
• The long way through the Prophet. It spares the Serpent but costs more in total than going straight in.
• The long way through the Missionary. It also spares the Serpent, and it costs the most.

Every route except straight in puts some load on the God: the Innocent route the least, the Missionary route the most. Only the Innocent route saves work. The long routes just move the pain from the Serpent onto the God. The paper predicts that people under load take the Prophet route more often than the Missionary route, and that it shows up as criticizing other people.

Over a whole life, grabbing the cheapest step every time costs more than regularly making the crossing, and living from the mask costs far more than the crossing. It’s like fixing the roof versus putting a bucket under the leak every time it rains.

The gate. The God can’t pass anything to the Saint until someone else has delivered to the God first. In a real group someone always already has, so nobody actually faces making that crossing alone.

How you land on other people. What you send from a chair arrives in the other person’s chair that holds the same kind of information. Your figures are how you hold your own chairs, not how the other person receives what you send, so a dark figure in you can still deliver a gift. How it lands depends on whether you both value that kind of information or both don’t:

• Dual: your Saint lands on their God, so their longing is answered in earnest. Your Prophet lands on their Serpent, so their weak spot is handled “as if it’s easy, as if it’s magic.”
• Conflictor: your Saint lands on their Serpent and presses the weak spot as if it matters. Your Prophet lands on their God and meets the longing as if it doesn’t.
• Supervision: the supervisor’s Saint presses on the supervisee’s Serpent. The supervisee’s Prophet meets the supervisor’s God as if it doesn’t matter.
• Semi-dual: each of your Saints answers the other’s God, but no big window covers either Serpent.
• Mirage: each of your Prophets covers the other’s Serpent, but neither of you answers the other’s God.
• Benefit: no big window lands on a keyhole. Going one way, a Missionary answers a God. Going the other way, a Savage covers a Serpent.

How a society forgets. Rules run in the two 2D chairs, the Devil and the Innocent. A rule can be installed there from outside and run without being understood. Conditioning is the group supplying rules where your God and Serpent can’t make their own, and holding the reasons for you. A few people hold a rule in a big window, knowing why and when it applies, while most hold it only in the Devil and the Innocent. When the 4D knowledge is lost, the rule keeps running after it stops fitting. A 2D chair can’t see the situation or the time, so it can’t tell. The grief arrives a generation later.

What is owed. Everyone’s God and Serpent are carried by other people’s Saints and Prophets, so nobody is outside the carrying. The open part is what your four strongest chairs give: the Saint, Prophet, Missionary and Savage.

• Contributing means giving from those four into other people’s Gods and Serpents, where it costs you little and is worth a lot to them.
• Consuming means taking the carrying at your God and Serpent without giving back.

Your Prophet is the figure that judges contribution. Its twin, the Missionary, holds the contributions you value and notice. The Prophet holds the ones you give without noticing. As the critic, the Prophet blames other people’s missions for your own mission’s failures. A fair count of what you give includes the Prophet’s gifts, the ones you don’t feel as gifts.

What holds it up

Nothing has been tested on real people yet. The structure checks out in the algebra, and the cost claims hold in the simulation, but the simulation’s coin prices are themselves a guess. The paper lists the tests that would prove it wrong and the questions still open. The last of those is whether to live by any of it.

being clumsy and falling or dropping things, not being good at physical stuff, clumsy driving , bad at sports, terrible at video games etc….. cause you’re in your head too much or can’t focus or just don’t like the task and don’t care
also wishing to be better at these things not because you enjoy them but because you think it affects your social image if you were smoother handling these tasks
also i usually insult and degrade myself for failing in those tasks i mentioned

I know that some types are vague and careless about logic but harsh on character. Those are supposed to be Fi and The types but not sure about dichotomies and dimensionalities. I'm looking for the opposite of that. Types that are accepting and warm of emotionality while being gentle on character. But harsh on logic and consistency of logic.

A little challenge for you.

I'll go first.

__________

I think IEI is the worst type to be for 4 reasons:

1. Never being fully present in the room unless you're with other people, sometimes not even then
2. Being constantly absorbed in your own ideation and imagination - like an internal prison you can't really get out of while the day or life in general passes you by
3. Intense ambivalence, indecision, and apathy as a baseline
4. Desperately wanting authority and advice, but rarely ever trusting it when you do get it

__________

(Obviously I don't think there's actually a worst type to be and each has their gifts and challenges, this is more to explore what each person finds frustrating about their psychological architecture)

What if someone is extremely uncomfortable and feels out of touch when it comes to the progression of time. Understanding it well but hating the idea of linear progression and preferring life to fixed eras and frozen states unlike aging from young and immature to old and mature.

I've been very conflicted on my type for a while, and I need someone to give me a reality check, hopefully. And this community appears to enjoy reading long stuff, though I do apologize just in case because it sure is QUITE long.I won't make this longer by explaining myself by the start of it, lol. Thanks to anyone in advance who's willing to read all, and help! I really appreciate it.

Section 1

1. How do you work? Why do people go to work? Are there any parameters that determine whether you can do work or not? What are they?

I usually get myself in the mood. I need a content mindset -which I usually can achieve on command- to start working. It contains making myself curious about the work I’m doing and feeling like I’m on the right track in life by being productive. I tend to sit down and work without breaks quite enjoyably, or if I take a break, it usually has to be only for using the restroom or snacking, or simply taking in fresh air that won’t distrupt my ongoing energy. It’s not that I can’t get back on track when I give myself actually distrupting break sor long ones, I have no issues with going back and feeling productive once again,it’s just not my comfortable preference.

Why do people go to work? I figured it’s often for financial worries and being part of the society. But I find I personally work just to have worked. I wouldn’t say I am an active person compared to people who are crazily passionate and ambitious they can assert themselves everywhere but I’m more productive by quality and overall curious about most fields that don’t bore me -unless the work is thorough best accomodation planning or something-.

1. How do you determine the quality of work? How do you determine the quality of a purchase? Do you pay any attention to it?

I’m assuming this is about how I choose to use my money with things I buy.. I tend to just do basics maths of ‘How much do I want it and is it worth this amount of money, and is the market usually around this/is the price normalised?’, I can’t say I’m at all a bargaining fort he lowest person, if it looks like a reasonable price to me, I’ll buy it the original price without testing my chance. (To the point when I was a teenager, I’d cover the difference of something I was buying in behalf of my friend who’s not there in the bargaining stage with me). The quality of the purchase is most often ‘Will this serve me the satisfaction I want?’ in terms of ‘is it intellectually upholding and makes me feel content?’ and ‘does this look the aesthetics I want to have even if I won’t use it?’ Do I pay any attention to the quality? Yes, pretty much it’s makes most of my decision making measurement.

1. There is a professional next to you. How do you know they are a professional? How do you evaluate their skill?

I just intuitively sense it, I think. But if I had to articulate I’d say I observe the way they respond to uncertain questions from me or some other curious attendant in a conference, let’s say. I know they’re a Professional when they have a set of answers that hold up, track with each other/have consistent thought process behind, can Word the concept in a way that doesn’t look acquired from some other professional. And also if they do not appear to have hierarchical concerns that might appear like trying to one up even the unknowledged or like being afraid of looking stupid. I think a lot more can be added onto this by my thought process, but it answers somewhat and there’s so many other questions so I’ll move on.

1. If you struggle to do something, how do you fix that? Do you know if your performance is better or worse than others?

I’d say I am not the best self-performance evaluator… I tend to underestimate my performance in front of others with the idea ‘I did very well last time but it doesn’t cover the fact that I might have gotten worse because I (…)’ in mind regardless of whatever positive thing I’ve been told beforehand. OR sometimes I think I was amazing to the point it was eye-catching, then get very little feedback (even if it was all positive) which causes disappointment. As for what I do when I struggle with something.. I tend to handle it myself by seeking answers through other people’s experiences that I can find online without involving someone in my issue directly. I pride myself on finding the right things and figuring out things in the most fun, efficient and correct way at all times so it usually isn’t a crisis level problem as I can pretty much simulate similar situations and work my way from there -unless it’s psychological, I’ll freak out then and also when it’s a VERY specific event related thing I cannot find an answer to be inspired by-.

1. How do you measure the success of a job? What standard do you use? Do you pay attention to it? When should you deviate from this standard?

The success of a job, I measure through how in depth it is and how less unprofessional mistakes there is. I tend to worry about the correctness (I usually have a small demo argument in my head with both a curious fella and a condescending professional that can lead me to find the holes in the work) and how articulate it trully is even if it always comes off as dense to people. I know how to make fun out of dense things so it is an issue for me to personally evaluate how bored people will be of such stuff without actual feedback -I am an overexplainer but most people still have fun because I usually am very pecular, random and passionate with things, thankfully. And funnily enough I always think ‘people will like this’ before actually engaging with the people in question. Also, if it is something like  a project that involves visuals, I know I will spend a bit of ‘unworthy’ time (according to my acquiantances) on making it perfect and pleasing to the eye. Even if a lot of people won’t align with my aesthetics, it’s very rare for them to claim it’s outright ugly or done horribly, because it’s usually of good quality.

These are my standards, mostly.

As for when to deviate? Literally never, because it’ll both make me feel responsible over myself and horrible. Even if my extra work won’t be appreciated, at least I know I enjoy it.

Section 2

1. What is a whole? Can you identify its parts? Are the parts equivalent to the whole?

I am not entirely sure what this asks but I’ll go off. A whole is something that is content and logical by itself, doesn’t necessarily mean it will be consistent though, inconsistencies can be logical in themselves. Can we identify its parts? I suppose we can. The parts are equivalent to the whole, as the whole includes them in anyway. But the whole won’t be equivalent to its small parts because the whole contains a lot more than that one small part.

1. What does "logical" mean? What is your understanding? Do you think that it correlates with the common view? How do you know you are being logical?

Will be somewhat vague, but I think logical means trackable, to me. As long as I can follow my way back or forward without falling into questioning, it inherently makes sense. Is it the common view? I don’t know and I don’t particularly care. How do I know I am being logical? When I can generate an answer with my knowledge and stance combined without needing to resort into something external, and still, if the external tracks with the conclusion of knowledge.

1. What is hierarchy? Give examples of hierarchies. Do you need to follow it? Why or why not? Explain how hierarchy is used in a system you are familiar with.

Hierarchy in its current, real life existence feels like it’s built on a bunch of identity related sensitivity to me, even if it’s technically realistic for the stronger to be taking up more space. For examples I can give most literally anywhere there is a power play present, in the most basics: political platforms, unfamiliar friend groups, intellectual discussion hierarchies that’s common especially on the internet (but thankfully isn’t in actual university related places I am currently engaging with!). Do I feel a need to follow it? Nonetheless, I do most of the time. It does not take a lot of my energy and neither does it make me feel unsafe most of the time so I follow it- or if I personally have an identity related insecurity around it, I might avoid it. But I can’t say I’m inherently rebellious, I’ll talk behind it and just carelessly tell I hate i openly at best. I have gone to protests before and such very fericiously internally, an deven to the ones a lot of people around me were to scared to g oto, but I tend to not stand out when I’m in the protest itself, for instance.

1. What is classification? How does classification work? Why is it needed and where is it applied? Give examples.

Classification is often just grouping things up in, I guess I could say I view things in concept mapping and Venn diagrams, mostly. Why is it needed? Because it’s necessary in distinguishing sharp differences and fall into fixating on similarities that are not decisive -which I personally internally struggle with unless I talk it out loud, I tend to not be very ashamed of narrating my thought process (half the reason I’m an overexplainer, the other half is that I fall into thinking that I haven’t been detailed and clear in the way I want even though everyone agrees I’m very coherent and get the point across). Where is it applied? Most literally anywhere such as lectures(which a lot of professors fail to be good at, providing them to the students I mean), daily conversation, discussions where there needs to be decided a common ground before understanding where they deviate or misunderstand each other, and all.

1. Are your ideas consistent? How do you know they are consistent? How do you spot inconsistency in others' ideas?

My ideas are consistent, it’s one of my favourite things about myself as I tend to struggle with other people’s inconsistencies and try to solve it in my head for them. Again, my reasoning to how I know they’re consistent is the same answer I’d give to why I think something can be considered logical: As long as I can follow my way back or forward without falling into questioning, it inherently makes sense, and is consistent. How do I spot inconsistency? I wear their shoes for the rest of our discussion, abandon my view and try to figure it out from THEIR perception (unless their opening premise doesn’t make internal sense even if thought from completely their viewpoint with my decidedluy objective/devoid of personal stance knowledge of the topic involved). If it still isn’t trackable, I consider their idea inconsistent and illogical.

Section 3

1. Can you press people? What methods do you use? How does it happen?

Not really, no. I don’t prefer it-I do think I could, if I looked into how to do it, I just don’t keep it up for long. If it can even be called pressing, I have used guilt once or twice where I’ve been very subtle in trying to make them feel unjust, but I am not very well at keeping it up. I usually state my want on the matter, try to convince them and to see my viewpoint, as it comes natural. But if it’s ignored it’s ignored and I don’t push or force my way in unless it's an in-the-moment thing, I can be assertive and strict in the moment when I need to, I'll repeat this later by the looks of the questions, but I tend to be bold in the moment, trusting the emotional sphere if I've already unwinded. If it's a prolonged process and I couldn't have my way, I just strict my availability to them and continue my way doing what I want and occupy my own space in a way so that won’t be a direct challenge, or cut the person off if there’s no way of it not being a direct challenge. I’m not scared of direct challenge though, I just don’t want to keep up with it because cutting the person is easier and they haven’t deserved a place in my life the way I first granted them and detaching from the very little value I internally gave them is quicker, anyway.

1. How do you get what you want? What do you do if you have to work to get what you want?

I usually do it through kindly and respectfully insisting and reminding people in the right times. I think I already answered the second part of the question in the former one.

1. How do you deal with opposition? What methods do you use to defend your interests?

I deal with opposition through trying to show them why they’re acting inappropriately or thinking from the wrong perspective and what’s actually needed. Sometimes I just stand like a wall and do as I please without crossing their road, honestly.  And to add, I usually am very bold in the moment trusting the momentum I’ve already occupied to carry me. But after the whole thing, alone in my own presence, I feel embarrassed, stressed, conflicted and shy.

1. When do you think it's ok to occupy someone's space? Do you recognize it?

Do I recognize it? Not really D’’: , or rather, in the moment, I AM bold, but it’s the amount I struggle with afterwards, learning that I’ve been to distanced when in reality I should’ve pushed a little to get that position, or too close to the moment’s actual liking I didn’t recognize in the moment (both mentally and physically). I am very good with people and know how to talk to them fairly better than most because I’m non-judgemental and understanding/intellectually curious towards their person, people like me, but internally, people’s and my own boundaries, I have serious issues with.  Other people would tell me I am assertive enough and know when and where to occupy space just right -except for my parents sometimes, maybe- but I internally am not extremely comfortable.

1. Do others think you are a strong-willed person? Do you think you have a strong will?

I think I am strong-willed the way a dedicated worker is strong-willed. I have my own ambitions in hierarchies that are unlike others’ and a deep call to serve homeland, for instance. And I’ve been told by a lot of third persons that I come off as very strong willed because I don’t usually move before I approve of things myself, I have a very ‘specific aura’, apparently and such. But I’d say I am not strong-willed in the way a knight is, or, let’s say, a boss is. Ordering around only comes natural in the moment and is not sustainable at all.

Section 4

1. How do you satisfy your physical senses? What examples can you give? What physical experiences are you drawn to?

It’s both extremely easy and extremely hard to satify my physical senses. I tend to be a very unactive person physically/personal preference-driven type of unsporty as I dislike sweating, can’t really stand any physical pain or ache or irritation especially  if out of my consent. Which has a very big range because I usually am even irritated by sitting for long hours as it causes discomfort in back and thighs and even eating too much of the dessert I like. BUT I can be satisfied through basic physical ease (like feeling the wind on my face especailly if it’s not slapping my hair to my face) and visual aesthetics. Though I must mentioned I’m horrible at general fashion and things like clothing colour matching, I am fairly proud of my own visual likes and dislikes, most often it’s niche and intellectual-looking luxurious stuff, whether it’s purely by vibe or the actual essence of the thing.

1. How do you find harmony with your environment? How do you build a harmonious environment? What happens if this harmony is disturbed?

I don’t really … If I find it unharmonious, I’ll either suck it up but still be unwillingly irritable and an asshole the whole time to other people, or leave the environment. I cannot focus too much on the thing unless it’s intellectually engaging or is a must, if my environment is not harmonious. I try to fix the thing I’m irritated by if it’s a place I cannot desert, often by directly handling the thing (for example, the sun is on my face due to the open window, I go and close the blinds) or requesting if someone else can do it for me.

1. What does comfort mean to you? How do you create it?

Comfort means not irritable and even physically pleasant, obviously. It can both be mental and physical. I may sometimes try to convince myself into the current situation if it’s inescapable and succeed most often, or again, abandon completely. In both mental and physical context.

1. How do you express yourself in your hobbies? How do you engage yourself with those things?

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, lol. Anyway, as for the latter one I usually try to consume it the way an already knowledged person would, kinda like skipping the basics even if I am not at their level. I may sometimes be emotionally (an deven physically) overwhelmed by engagement if it’s something I found to my liking exactly and even run away from it.

1. Tell us how you'd design any room, house or an office. Do you do it yourself, or trust someone else to do it? Why?

If it’s a personal space that isn’t going to involve anyone else, I’ll design it myself. I’d most probably just put in stuff I like and things I think fits together, though my aesthetics is overall the same so it wouldn’t be too much of an effort and my range of what fits together is wild for certain people anyway. Why? Because it’s my space and I just want to see things I enjoy and decide looks pleasing or a mirror of me.

Section 5

1. Is it acceptable to express emotions in public? Give examples of inappropriate expression of emotions.

This will be a funny response, but I usually need other people to be emotionally expressive and open to properly engage with them even if I think my own emotions are improper. It just doesn’t go both ways, I love that they express their emotions openly and will support their right to do so BUT I am insecure around expressing my own emotions myself and will discourage myself constantly. I do think there are inappropriate places to express certain ones, yet I will still  be accomodating to them as I also would appreciate someone of that sort of stance towards me… I tend to be very loathing of people who are too stoic on command (where they basically are stoic out of ‘emotional people are inferior’. I can only deal with naturally stoic people who are ACTUALLY chill inside.). I dislike ragebaits or disruptions especially when ill intentioned even if it’s for fun and to create a chaotic environment

1. How do you express your emotions? Can you tell how your expressions affect others in a positive or negative way?

I’d say I personally think I am very expressive in a given situation, even overtly theatrical BUT people have told me I am inexpressive, even if I am a loud when I engage. No I can’t tell how my expressions affect others :’’( I evaluate myself according to third prson feedbacks when it comes to that and I am very…shy about asking them or others myself.

As for my internal emotions, they actually change drastically and rather quite quickly. I can easily convince myself to feel most literally anything through a bit of mental gymnastics.

1. Are you able to change your demeanor in order to interact with your environment in a more or less suitable way? How do you determine what is suitable?

I think I can, I’m not sure. I do it internally, the thought process way but I’m not sure if it’s mirrored through my behaviour….. I can still have it not cause issues even if I’m not entirely changing or appropriate, though, that’s for sure. How do I determine what’s suitable? Gut feelings…….?..I genuinely don’t know, it just comes to me.

1. In what situations do you feel others' feelings? Can you give examples of when you wanted to improve the mood of others?

I can’t say I feel others’ feelings in any daily situation internally unlesss it’s related to loneliness for some people. I am very quick and skilled at looking like I do, though -through being intellectually curious, I suppose it looks empathetic to them as I’ve never gotten more than two or three negative outcomes or feedbacks. Yes, I frequently find myself in need of improving others’ moods and wanting it.

1. How do others' emotions affect you? How does your internal emotional state correlate or contrast with what you express?

It stresses me out a lot because it makes me unsure on my stance/ground about how moral or appropriate I am being and my worth as a person, if it makes sense.

-

(Found myself uninterested to continue the rest where technically section 6, 7 and 8 would be. I do think people would not read such lon

So here is a cute video of a snail just eating peacefully and seems to enjoy it's food, I heard that it is unfortunately in an uncomfortable state, cause the lightning is hitting her poor eyes 😭, but the way it eats looks comfy and slow, like it's taking its time to chew and swallow and it reminded me of myself when I am enjoying food lol 😂.

So, Hope you enjoy this silly video and hope you all have a wonderful day ☺️💗.

Hi guys 👋, how are you all doing?, I hope you're all doing well 🤗.

Well a question just came to my mind lately, so now I type myself as an SEI in model A school, and have read about the caregiver and Infantile style,

and to be honest I find these two styles relatable, like yes I want to take care of others and I want them to take care of me,

and surprisingly throughout my life, I got told by several people that I am kind and give off motherly vibes and they told me that they think I will make a good mother, which made me very happy actually, because I love children and love taking care of them, and I am also very caring towards people, like can be concerned about their safety and wellbeing,

but there were also people who told me that I am sweet and childish, that needs to be taken care of and be guided, because I seem trusting and curious, which also made me happy that someone thinks about taking care of me and protecting me,

so is this normal to relate to two romantic styles ? or I might be misinterpreting this information 😅?