My Augusta Socionics Questionnaire

A Quick Introduction

Hey guys, just a quick opening statement. So I took this questionnaire from the SCS site. While I do have issues with Classical Socionics as a structure for typing, I do admit that the SCS team made a really decent questionnaire. This is my attempt at writing it, and people can then come to whatever conclusions about my typing that they want.

This is... well, pretty long. I value in-depth answers on typing questionnaires, so I didn't want to be a hypocrite, and I sought to put my best foot forward.

Extroverted Thinking (Te)—Pragmatism

Te-A: What would you consider to be productive work? How would you measure this? What are some factors that may affect someone or something’s efficiency? Provide some examples.

There are a lot of factors to assess someone’s work, and to be perfectly honest, wheneverI am tasked with training someone at work, I typically don’t care how something is done as long as the job gets completed. I’m not there to micromanage, and I know everyone has their own systems for doing things. It’s when things don’t get done in time when sometimes I feel the need to step in. Maybe it’s a lack of motivation, or someone just needs a kick to the shins to start moving a little faster, etc.

There could also be things wrong with processes or the resources available to the worker. It is not always the person’s fault, but rather the equipment they were given. So it’s important to make sure you give a person what they need to complete a job. I prioritize speed and hard work more than efficiency, and sometimes those things are not all that connected. Efficiency is all about finishing the most amount of work, with as little energy as possible. It is akin to measuring fuel efficiency for your car or gauging the electricity bill you receive in the mail. Are you getting the most out of what you put in?

My main problem is that I value effort above most things, and as long as the job gets done in the meantime, the smaller intricacies in how you do it is not something I really look at. In my personal case, I often find that I can burn myself out when I get a task that needs to be done. I only see things in terms of “done” and “not done,” and so then I use willpower to get things moving as fast as possible to the completed stage. Back in school and university, if I got an assignment that was due, I would spend my lunch periods indoors working to get it done before I got home. Would it better for energy expenditure if I took my lunch break to rest? Probably. If I waited to get home to do homework, it would get completed by tomorrow no matter what. But I felt a strong urge to get things done fast, regardless of whether it “made sense” in the long term.

I would get a sense of satisfaction from pushing through the pain, with schoolwork it could be hunger or just fighting the general restlessness of sitting for hours on end. At work, it could be sweat and heatstroke. But that is what keeps me going, more so than maximizing productivity.

Te-B: Think of a time where you needed to complete a difficult task. How did you approach managing the workflow? Why? How can you tell apart illogical and logical workflows or methods of action.

It depends if I have ever completed that task before. If not, then I guess I will find out exactly just how difficult this task is once I get started on it? Then it’s just a matter of pushing past everything, then learning lessons for next time when that task/problem inevitably comes back up. But if I've done it before, I’ll break up the task into specific portions, dedicate a portion of my shift to completing each task to the best of my ability, and then adjust things the more I do it. In this whole process, I am more than happy to take suggestions on how to improve my process. As long as the criticism is directed towards improving my process (and not just nitpicking or insulting my character), then I am actually really happy to find ways to contribute more effectively in an organization.

As for telling apart “logical” and “illogical” workflows or methods of action, I really only judge if the task was completed on time or not and to a suitable standard. If not, then there is either an issue with how the person is going about that task, their time-management skills, the resources given to them, or just a lack of effort. If I’m responsible for supervision and training (both at work and my previous experience as a former student teacher), then I’ll try to find out what’s wrong. If I’m the inexperienced one in the relationship, then I’m hardly in a position to be critiquing (unless my output was judged to be better) until I get more expertise in how things are done over time.

Te-C: How can someone make a set of rules/instructions easy to follow? When people aren’t correctly following directions or procedures, how do you correct them? When should you?

When I was pursuing my degree in teaching (before I dropped out because I felt like it wasn’t the right career choice), the biggest skill I learned was that when you are teaching someone, you rely on structural foundations. What that means is that you start from the basics and eliminate all complexity and nuance until they grasp the fundamentals. You sacrifice precision for practicality, because there is no way that a person is going to grasp all the details in the first go-around.

So whenever I make a set of tasks/instructions, I try to eliminate most nuance and focus on grounded applications. There might be 100 different things to consider while completing a task, but is that important information, or is it just information that can be sought out at a later date? It is actually one of my biggest issues when it comes to typology purists (or specifically at times, Classical Socionics), because they often sacrifice practicality for purism in their structures. That is all said and good, but it is not the most effective way to learn.

When people aren’t properly following directions or procedures, it depends on the severity of the situation. Most times, I will actively acknowledge they aren’t following directions, and I will leave them to make mistakes on their own. That way, they then realize the importance of why those policies are in place, and now they have first-hand experience. If it’s a serious situation, then I will more readily correct them, reminding them of the ramifications if those policies are not met (but this is not my go-to strategy).

Te-D: What would you consider a normal level of activity? Is it always normal to maintain this? Why or why not? How can you tell if someone is overexerting or underexerting themselves?

I would consider a normal level of activity to be a state in which you are neither stressed nor bored. To be perfectly honest though, in my experience that is not how I go about my tasks. I alternate between bursts of extreme effort, and then I go home to recuperate and recover (where very little gets done). At work, I will often find myself taking my lunch breaks exceedingly late because I am engrossed in a task, because I know full well that I can “rest when I get home.” It is the same attitude I took at school while growing up, while I practiced martial arts (Muay Thai), and when I engage with anything worthwhile. There is a time for work and a time for rest. As long as you have both, I find that you can willingly engage in bursts of extreme effort and push yourself a lot farther.

As for telling whether someone else is overexerting themselves, I don’t usually look at the work being done. Instead, I examine their body language, mannerisms, how irritated the person is, etc. When I am stressed out and frustrated, I usually get a strong gut feeling inside me. What happens next depends on how the person is acting. If they begin to treat others terribly, I get the view that this person “needs to get a grip,” and that’s when I will suggest a break.

Te-E: Think of an activity that requires certain physical or mechanical skills. How would you differentiate between a good or bad technique? What makes these techniques effective or ineffective? How aware are you of your own performance?

So I guess for this example I will talk about martial arts and physical activity. I took kickboxing as a hobby since I was a kid, stayed in gym until graduation, and took a few classes in how to each physical education to children/teenagers as per my practicum (again, before I decided teaching was not for me). I always intrinsically knew this, but now being able to put this into words help demonstrate everything.

So I’ll start with martial arts.

So when you commit to the execution of a technique, you need to take into account kinetic energy: the range of motion (which includes torque, rotations, etc.) that generates energy within your body to utitlize towards action. It’s a fundamental principle in sports in general.

The more movements you incorporate into your body when executing a maneuver, the more kinetic energy (impact) you build up. However, the longer it takes for you to finish a technique, the more open you are to being countered. So a good technique is something that balances building up kinetic energy, but minimizes the degree you are left open. You’ll notice that when most people fight or throw a punch, they will commit to a “haymaker.” A type of punch you’ll likely see with the school jock, or the bar drunk who is on his fifth divorce when you remind them they are bald. The sort where the person will raise their first, commit to a heavy wind up, then release (with the person usually putting most of their weight on their front leg to help support the amount of force, which also simultaneously leaves them off balance).

Now, to give credit where it’s due, these attacks are strong because the person often throws their whole body weight into the attack. Unfortunately, it also leaves them wide open if you dodge. They sacrificed speed for power, which makes them more open to counter-attack. To name one method, they are going to be off balance, so then if you are fast enough, you can go for a sweep to knock them to the ground, or close the distance to get them into a clinch, and then pummel them with knee blows or shin-kicks to… well, the shins.

So you’ll quickly find out if someone actually knows what they are doing in a fight by the type of punch they throw, their defensive stance, clinch technique, etc. So often times I can usually descern whether someone is good at what they do by how they move, and the degree of calmness they apply to their movements. You can apply that same principle in other combat sports (I always wanted to try fencing too) and physical activity (even solo sports such as dance, or throwing a ball properly), there is a lot of carry over.

As for being aware of my own peformance, I often need outside feedback. I often tell myself that I’m not doing good enough, so when people actually tell me that I’m doing a good job it feels great. When I did private lessons with my Muay Thai instructor, and he told me that I learn “exceptionally quickly,” I swear I took home that praise and thought about it for a week straight lol.

Extraverted Feeling (Fe): External Emotionality and Expression

Fe-A: To what extent does someone’s emotional state affect a person’s being? How does your emotional state affect your daily life? When does your true emotional state differ from what you express?

In my opinion, it’s my belief that you can’t really control what you are feeling. You feel the way you do for a reason, but you can always control your response to it. You don’t need to always put it out in the open for others to see. Most of the time, I feel like my emotions are strictly for me, and it is nobody else’s problem as to how I’m actually feeling. But at the same time, I really don’t enjoy scenarios in where people try to make me act a certain way, if that makes sense. If I had complete control over my enviornment, I will usually try to act in a way that is in alignment with my feelings. It doesn’t mean I am going to express myself per-se, but I always try to change it to action.

There are times though where you do need to play a role, in order to create a better enviornment. For example, at the workplace. Do I always feel like I’m in a good mood, and would I prefer to be working in the back and not talk to anybody. Absolutely. Does life always work out that way? Not really. So you have to compromise at times. Like when I’m with family and it’s a gathering that’s obviously very important to them, I will act a bit more enthusiastic than usual. At work, I will try to behave in a way in where everyone feels accepted (even if I strongly dislike the person). I don’t like doing it, but life demands flexibility I guess.

Fe-B: How important is it for someone to feel inspired and excited about what they’re doing? Why? How can people actively inspire others?

Personally, not really. Of course it’s always better if someone cares about what they are doing, but there are going to be times in where something needs to get done regardless if the person wants to do it or not. If I have to change my behaviour to inspire someone to get act, then I’m just going to get annoyed lol. But I think it just depends on the person I’m trying to inspire. I don’t mind it as much if it’s someone I legitimately care about and need to cheer up, and how susceptible they are to expression. Some people are just really energized by positive emotional feedback (like my mother for instance), so sometimes you need to “play yourself up” in order to make things more comfortable for everyone.

As for how you can “inspire” others, often enough you just need to make them feel comfortable/accepted. Keep your judgements (at least externally) to a minimum, crack a few jokes (usually self-deprecative humour works), and don’t take anything too seriously. If you do that, people are going to be comfortable coming to you for help, or they will be more willing to do things for you. In a workplace or family environment, that sort of cohesion can be important. But most of the time, I just feel annoyed that I have to be placed in such a position in the first place. I would much rather let people feel as they already are, without placing my influence upon those emotions. Vise-versa, I appreciate it when people try not to make me feel a certain way, and just let myself come to whatever “feeling” I might have.

Fe-C: What role do negative emotions, including anger, play in people’s lives? What causes them? Are they intrinsically valuable? Why or why not? What can be learned from negative emotions?

I don’t really see emotions in a “positive” or “negative” dichotomy, they are just emotions. Your emotional landscape is like an ocean where it does not always make sense as to where it specifically comes from, but it’s a part of who you are. So I approach it from a neutral stance. Like what I said before, all your emotions are valid, but how you put them into action can (and should) be judged accordingly. Because once your emotions leave you and impact others, that is where accountability and self-control should be valued. Anger is just one of those neutral emotions, it does not do anything by itself. It can be a positive force to motivate yourself towards productive action, but if used in a poor manner (where it far exceeds the crime), external anger should be criticized.

People who get externally angry easily just exhibit a poor sense of self-control in my eyes, and I begin to lose respect for them. It just feels unreliable to have someone in your life that can shift their mood by 180 degrees because they stumped their toe on something. So as for what can “be learned,” I think I would just prioritize self-control. All of your emotions are valid, but that does not give you leeway to act in whatever way you see fit. If I see that, I feel compelled to step in and put a stop to it. You could say that I feel angry when I see someone acting that way, but then I try to translate that anger into productive action that is equal to the crime. Most times it just results in me setting that person aside 1-on-1 to talk to them about their poor behaviour. You’ll never see me throw a fit, because that is not useful, and won’t solve anything besides making the people around you intentionally uncomfortable. Why not do something actually useful with that anger?

Fe-D: In your view, what does it mean to be calm? How can someone reduce the amount of emotionality happening in others around them? When would it be appropriate to adjust this?

To me, being calm is just being in a state where regardless of the emotions you feel internally, you keep yourself in a “neutral” and controlled state. Think of think like a giant bowl of water, in where the water remains still in order to prevent “spillover” from when it gets jossled. That’s a personal decision though, and being in control of my emotions to better utilize them in better ways, is something I value about myself. It’s not really my business (outside of regulated places such as work) to get involved in people’s emotions. You should allow them to feel how they do, only intervening in cases where someone is using their emotions to justify hurting someone you care about. Again, emotions are neutral. There are no “positive” or “negative” emotions. They are all a part of who you are. It is once you involve me or people I care about with your actions, is where I can step in if necessary.

In summary, I don’t think it’s ever appropriate to insert yourself on how people are feeling. If someone did that to me in the rare cases I decide to be emotionally vulnerable, and attempt to “cheer me up,” I would take offense to it. Not that the person is doing anything wrong per-se, but it’s like my emotions are being treated like an “inconvenience,” rather than something to be accepted for what they are. If I get insulted by that, it does not feel right to do it to anybody else.

Fe-E: How can you tell how someone is feeling? Describe some signs to look for. What are some giveaways that someone’s internal state is different from what they’re expressing on the outside?

I can tell primarily by just body language. When someone is feeling angry in particular, it’s almost as if I can feel it radiating off them like body heat. Long glares staring into nothing without blinking, clenched fists, irregular and rapid body movements, etc. When someone is depressed, I find that I can tell usually by speech, and the person just feeling more “dejected” than usual.

I think I just take into account a person’s typical routine, behaviours, and mannerisms; if something is different than the norm (despite the person saying otherwise) I will pick up on it quickly. A person can say whatever they want, but I find body language and routines a lot more difficult to get control over. If you want to know how someone is truly feeling, take inventory of their typical mannerisms and expressions. If you spot something outside the norm, then you might be on to something.

Extroverted Sensing (Se)- Movement and Impact

Se-A: To what extent does an individual’s appearance and external presentation affect them? How aware are you of the way you come off? Should people always consider how they look? Why or why not?

I think how people present themselves is a vital aspect of perception, and you pinpoint a lot about a person by just the way they look, how they carry themselves, etc. It can present a bunch of red-flags. This is obviously judgemental, but we have five senses for a reason.

For example, at work I can automatically tell if someone is a douchebag by how fast they pull into the parking lot, what they are driving, whether they don’t take off their sunglasses before coming indoors, how many accessories they put on, etc. If I see someone walking into my space looking like, my immediate reaction is “oh boy, here we go” because I’m certain my interaction with that person is going to be unpleasant. The same thing goes for someone who looks like a slob, and I know for a fact they don’t work a manual-labour position. It just brings the impression that they don’t have anything going on in life (which is completely fine), but it’s not the sort of person I’m looking for, if that makes sense?

For example, every day during my lunch period at work, I walk about 10 minutes to the library because it’s a quiet place to be alone. For whatever reason, whenever I pass by this small apartment complex (to the library, to and from work, etc), there is this old man just standing by the front door. He has a giant beard, walks with a giant cane in the shape of a tree-branch, and does nothing but stare at the steet all day long. There is nothing to see besides the Dairy Queen across the street, that the drug addicts frequent.

What’s he looking at?

To me, it seems he probably perceives himself to be the sort of pretentious “wise old man of the woods” caricature. The whole thing pisses me off every time I see him, and I always have to fight the impulse of kicking him in the dick as I pass him.

As for me, I always try to put some level of care into how I look, and to convey myself in a particular way. I do my best to dress professionally, but not to the extent that I feel as if I’m coming across as a “rich snob.” I’m not looking for formal, but I just want to be put together. It makes me feel better. In my opinion, people who neglect how they look are just neglecting the various ways human beings take in information. Relying purely on one or two senses just dulls your senses, and you can find out a lot about a person by the way they come across.

Se-B: Describe your views on money. What can it do for someone, and how does access to it affect people? What are your thoughts on riskier approaches to attaining it, such as risky investments and criminal behaviour?

Money is an important part of life, since it essentially is your purchasing power, and it provides you the ability to obtain your necessities. Having enough of a reliable income secures you independence from others, and allows you to take care of yourself. But I feel that money should never be the “end-goal” of your life’s ambitions by itself. It should be a tool to provide you means of affording you to pursue your goals, while taking care of yourself in a reasonable manner. Once you have enough money to achieve both those goals, that should be enough IMO.

As such, risking your financial stability or pursuing in criminal activity to obtain wealth is just stupid, and it screams of ego/indulgence rather than pursuing anything meaningful. The true worth of a person is by what they accomplish and struggle through, not their monetary worth. So I don’t have much respect for people who feel they need to gamble, or harm others to obtain money. Get a grip.

For example, my father is one of these people. When I was younger, he would engage with criminal behaviour, and take loans from criminal organizations with little intention of paying them back. So as a result, I was often tailed home by Hell’s Angels on my way home from school, and my mother received threatening phone calls demanding money. He would never take financial responsibility for himself, and instead, wholeheartedly believed he existed “outside the system,” that everyone else is sheep and that he alone knew how the world truly worked. But I saw the affect that it had on people, and the pursuit of wealth for it’s own sake, as opposed to doing anything meaningful with it. I even ended up giving up my scholarship money to help my father pay off his debtors, after he asked for it the day after I won the award. People like that are the opposite of independent, they require the constant assistance of others by being a leech. Same with all these “gangsters” that people idolize, like Scarface, Thomas Shelby, the mobsters from Goodfellas, etc.

These people aren’t strong, they are the epitome of weakness.

Se-C: What would you consider your short and long-term material goals? How do they compare to the goals of others? How can you tell if someone is striving for the right goals?

My short-term material goals is to make enough money to get by, and to pursue my hobbies. So currently I work at a firm that is responsible for renting equipment to people, and my job is working in shipping/recieiving. It’s not the best paying or most prestigious job in the world, but it pays for my rent, utilities, allows me to get back into martial arts, and decorate my apartment (and even slowly add to my small 4K movie collection I have going right now lol). I used to work at a law firm as an administrative assistant, and despite the drop in a “prestigious” job, I feel just as content making ends meet.

In contrast, my long-term goals involve joining the Canadian Armed Forces as an Aerospace Control Officer. Again, it is not the best paying job in the world. But the money is never really a focus for me. As long as I can take care of myself, invest in my hobbies; the money is secondary compared to the feeling of contributing towards developing myself into something worthwhile. The “right goal” to me is an initiative in which will change you for the better, where the experience makes you a more well-rounded and capable person. I like experiences which challenge me, and I get uneasy if I remain stagnant for too long. As a result, money is just a means of which will get to participate in those experiences, in where I can remain confident that my affairs will remain in order.

Se-D: What makes a person or organization look “put-together?” Are these people and groups able to exert their will over others? Why or why not? What makes a person good at organizing and directing the will of themselves or others?

I don’t really understand the meaning of “put-together?” If this question just means more well-rounded, then yeah, you should be stand on your own two feet. At least when it comes to me, I don’t like the idea of being a passive participant to life. You should be able to move, and carve out a space in life that fits your needs, the world isn’t just going to hand it over to you. That does not mean you should hurt others, but you need to take the initiative for your own wants and desires. If I come across someone who does not possess that willpower, than it feels like they can’t take care of themselves, or assert their needs. It makes them more prone to taking abuse, that they really shouldn’t.

Personally, I don’t really care about the idea of enforcing my will upon others, unless it is necessary. People have their own ideas, goals and methods for reaching them. As long as they have something meaningful to them, it should be supported and not “stomped out.” There are plenty of officers in the military that use their rank to crush the will of their subordinates, instead of working together. The times I will step in are in moments where I feel someone is being unnecessarily attacked, or they can’t defend themselves. That is where I feel a burning gut-feeling to intervene. For example, at a Tim Hortons line up, there was this poor worker getting berated by some lowlife because his English was unfortunately not up-to-par.

I was behind the customer in line, and impulsively, I told her “are you really freaking out over a $2 cup of coffee? Get a fucking grip, what are, two years old?.”

…Let’s just say the lady didn’t take it well, and she probably wanted to claw my eyes out, but my god, I was fully willing to break 40 something she-devil in half. Even when it comes to family, I will feel an impulsive need to jump in if I feel that I can stop something I find disagreeable. One instance, my mother was in a terrible mood, and spent the whole day criticizing my little brother for small errors. Personally, if someone has an issue, they should be matter-of-fact, don’t drag it out the entire day. Don’t get me wrong, my little stepbrother can be useless the best of days, but there is a productive way to criticize, and this was not it. So because I felt my mother was treating my younger sibling unfairly, I sat her down in the other room and told her how I felt. Believe me, telling your parent “how to parent” is not often good for your health, but being able to stand on buisness is an important part in making sure people are taken care of, and free of abuse. You can’t change things unless you are willing to stand up.

Se-E: One famous English adage is that “if there is a will, there is a way.” Do you agree? Why or why not? To what extent an individual’s will affect their ability to achieve their goals?”

I wholeheartedly agree. You can move mountains if you have the perseverance required to keep moving. Even if you don’t get the outcome you wished for, I guarantee you that some things are bound to change, and that nothing will if you don’t push things to get them moving. I can’t promise that eveyrhting will work out the way you hope, but action is often better than inaction 99% of the time.

For example, when I loaned my father my scholarship money to pay off his debtors, I fell into a deep slump. I dropped out of university and the teaching program, and felt alone in dealing with my problems. My mother asked me to keep the whole thing with my father a secret from others, and so I was left on my own to deal with whatever feelings I had on my own. But eventually, I really wanted to obtain a university degree. Not just to make my resume more competitive in the future, but because I wanted to become a more well-rounded person. So I decided to take my studies online through Canada’s accredited online university, and proceeded to spend 7-8 hours every day at a desk at the local college cafeteria doing my paperwork, creating my own schedules, reading endless piles of material, etc. Since the whole thing was online, I suffered from pretty severe bouts of loneliness. I lost most of my friends after I dropped out of university (and I decided to cut friendships after I felt they were one-way). But despite those feelings, and the stress of maintaining my university schedule full-time, scheduling my exams myself, I completed my degree while holding a job (becoming one of the first people in my family to do so). What pushed me through was the idea of becoming something more than what life originally planned out for me, and to create an impact despite my obstacles.

It’s the same reason I want to join the Armed Forces, Not because I want to lead, but I want to become a better person through that experience. I was born to a family that outcast from both sides, one because my father was a criminal and everyone disavowed him, and because my mother divorced my father and pissed off her relatives (who were Christain fundementalists) who excommunicated her. My father didn’t care about anything, was on the verge of financial ruin (when I was born he had his truck taken away by the government), and did things such as leaving me at home alone for a week (when I was just 11). It seemed like the whole world was against me, and did not expect me to accomplish much. Accomplishing things such as getting a bachelor’s degree, becoming an officer in the Armed Forces (I’m hoping to make it to Captain), coming back to pursue a Masters degree, work for the public service, etc. These are all goals that I want to push through and accomplish, to prove to the world that I have a right to exist, and I am here despite everything you’ve thrown at me.

Extroverted Intuition (Ne): Possibilities and Potential

Ne-A: What would you consider the essence - or meaning - of existence? Should life’s meaning be personal or collectively shared by humanity? Why?

I hold the opinion that there is no “essence” to existence; there is no specific rhyme or reason as to why you exist. What meaning you derive from your life is something you need to create for yourself. Personally, I don’t really think there is a “collective” ideal shared by humanity, because every single society, nation, and each individual person is different. They have their own attitudes, opinions, life experiences, social norms, expectations, familial relationships, etc. As a result, I don’t find much of a point to endlessly explore the meaning of existence, because it’s going to be different from person to person. It’s not objective, and it sounds like an endless pursuit with no real end goal. It sounds akin to a sort of gluttony I think, you are too busy looking at everything else, but you sort of miss what is right in front of you. This goes for people too. People might insist that some can change, but I’m not the one to let go of a grudge just because someone might get better.

Ne-B: What makes someone have potential? What makes someone more capable at things than others? When is it important to consider these capabilities? Can a person truly be hopeless? Why or why not?

I try to assess people by what I see right in front of me. Things like “potential,” don’t really play a factor, because, of course, if you are imaginative enough, you can wiggle in as many different possibilities you want to incapsulate a person. That does not mean it is going to happen, or is even real. What I mean is that, for example, if you know someone who treats their close ones like garbage, and no matter how much try it does not change.

Now, you could say that person has the potential to change their ways, and maybe they do, but they’re not giving me any evidence indicating such a change. So to me, while it sounds nice, it just sounds irresponsible to place your faith in a person through blind faith or imagination. That person might have the potential of suddenly realizing the error of his ways, donate his entire life savings to charity, and spend the rest of his life living as a Bhuddist monk; but what is happening right in front of me indicates different.

As to whether people can truly be hopeless, that is up to that specific person. Everyone has a choice, and an ability to control their actions. If you don’t give me consistent evidence that you are changing, then I’m just not going to believe you changed. It’s the same with assessing people’s abilities and potential. It is different if there is an objective measure, or that person has proven themselves to be capable. But just believing someone is capable when there is little evidence seems faulty to me.

Ne-C: What must a person understand to physically and spiritually develop themselves? Is it more important to recognize the flaws or strengths people are given? Why?

This is a difficult question for me to answer, to be perfectly honest. Mainly because I find that everyone’s circumstances (and therefore unique struggles) are going to be different. I don’t believe there is some grand spiritual principle that encapsulates existence, so what people need to do to become "better" is going to be unique. Things that I need to work for example, are probably going to be different than the random guy down the street needs to work on.

As for recognizing flaws and strengths, for me it’s a lot easier to pick out flaws. This probably sounds really negative, and it probably is. But I find it a lot riskier to ascribe positive qualities to a person, because then I become invested in that person. If that positive quality turns out to not actually be there, and I just pulled it from my imagination, well, that leaves me vulnerable. Whereas if you point out flaws, yeah you run the risk of writing someone off who might be good, but that’s about it. So from a perspective of risk assessment, I feel it is more productive for me to stay on the more vigilant side. Once I see evidence that a person is genuinely good to be around, then I have no problem investing time and making sure they are taken care of.

Ne-D: How would you determine how good an idea is? Do these ideas need to be realistic to be worthwhile? How would you differentiate a promising opportunity from a dead-end?

Typically, I would tell something is a good idea by how much it’s worked in previous situations in the past. It is not a foolproof method, I know, but I’m not big on putting all of my eggs in one basket. Also, I tend to write off ideas that needlessly convoluted, expansive and complicated. The main reason being that if you too busy accounting for every single possibility or factor, you aren’t really going to get anything done. Ideas are decent if they then lead to action IMO.

For example, one of my least favourite activities in school (and later university) is “brainstorming” and generating ideas with classmates. It is not that I don’t see the value in it from a teaching standpoint (making students aware of the dangers of keeping “blinders” on with single perspectives), but the vast majority of the time, it just seems like a waste when I could just focus on getting to work. To better explain myself, it is like ordering pizza, walking inside to pick it up, and then the cashier at the desk goes into intrinsic detail on the making of the pizza, and now you are getting gatekept from just taking the pizza home.

Bit of a stupid example, but exploring ideas for it’s own sake just seems like a giant roadblock to getting work done. Not that it can’t be valuable in specific circumstances (in controlled applications, like intelligence analysis), but I find in the vast majority of cases, it doesn’t lead to really any meaningful outcomes.

Ne-E: What does it mean for someone to understand the “essence” of something? When should someone prioritize understanding the core characteristics of a phenomenon? Think of a topic or interest you are knowledgable in. What do you think lies at the “essence” of it.

I still don’t think I completely understand what “essence” truly means (I know this sounds strange coming from someone who took an English minor in university). I think the best way I can describe it is looking past the superficial qualities of something, and judging based on it’s “core?’ If that is what this question means, then I guess you should always try to prioritize understanding something to it’s fullest extent. But I also generally subscribe to Occam’s Razor to eliminate needless complications/factors from whatever I am trying to assess. So you should examine the “core,” but not get too lost in exploring every facate of a topic either.

To give a small example, I took my university major in History (before you make fun of me, this degree is actually relatively sought after by law/intelligence agencies if you know how to explain your strengths), and one of my courses revolved around Ancient British history. The job of a history major is to look at a period of history, and take into account a variety of factors (religion, economics, norms, psychology, advancements in science) that make up that unique setting. It teaches you to approach any topic in your professional life with same degree of thoroughness, which I can appreciate (...within reason).

But with my ancient British history course, I had to follow the work of a particular historian. For whatever reason, this guy was very interested in the unproven, and would make tons of hypotheticals in how ancient British society could have looked like. The thing about ancient British history (before the Romans arrived) is that there is surprisingly little known about it. There is a consensus driven conclusion, but then this author would dedicate dozens upon dozens of pages going into detail on hypotheticals, Considering that I was tasked with reading sometimes 400 pages for this course alone, I wanted information that I could use. So it felt that for every page of consensus-backed information, there was then 20-30 pages of talking about ancient burial mounds might have indicated this. I have no issue changing my opinion when the facts suggest something new, and when professional consensus changes. But I’m not entirely confident on the frequent use of hypotheticals to explain the “essence” of a topic.

Introverted Thinking (Ti)- Precision and Structural Analysis

Ti-A: What would you understand as an individual’s basic needs? Are these the same for everyone? To what extent do people rely on others to have their needs met? At what points does this become reliance or undereliance?

I think the closest thing that can explain this is Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs, which ranges from basic survival (food, safety, shelter) to broader concepts such as self-actualization once the “lower rungs” of the structure are fufilled. And yeah, everyone needs their basic necessities first and foremost. You can’t focus on self-actualization if you are tempted with eating the grass outside. And if you want to get pedantic, everyone relies on each other to a certain extent. You want food? Well unless you go out hunting yourself, you are going to a supermarket where many people have taken on jobs and products have swapped hands to make it to your fridge.

I wouldn’t really call that an “overeliance,” much in the same way you wouldn’t tell ants that you need to become more self-reliant, because that’s the way their structures work (and why they are so potent and effective). If we go back to the “Heirarchy of Needs” proposed by Maslow, I think people should be responsible providing their own safety needs, and everything above that. Love, relationships, self-esteem, and self-actualization require your own willpower and perserverance to create and maintain.

Ti-B: How do people gain leverage, power, and respect from others? Is it sometimes necessary to use threats, fear, and punishment to accomplish this? Why or why not?

I don’t think there is any universal principle as to how to secure leverage, power and respect. It depends on the context you are in, what people you are around, and what your objectives are. But if we are talking in a more specific context (as in the power of the state, law, etc) then any rule needs to be backed with a punishment for breaking that rule. It makes sense in the context of the government, because it must treat everyone the same way, and everyone must adhere to the same structures. Otherwise, the rule of law pretty much crumbles. But when it comes to you and the people you interact with, I don’t think it’s wise to think that everyone can fit into nice and neat system.

Ti-C: One commonly used idiom is “everything has its place.” What does this mean to you? How do things being “in their place” contribute to orderliness? Do you agree with the idiom? Why or why not?

“Everything has its place:” I understand the idiom in terms of cleanliness, but I guess in terms of structural integrity, it would mean that “everyone has their specific role to play” in making everything work, which the fundamental mechanism in which hierarchies are maintained. Personally, I believe we see this more-so in workplace environments, or in the public service (law, government, etc). When people try to ascribe systems to all people, I do not think it works that neatly in practice. After a while, you will then begin to be one of the podcasters who has never even touched a girl, ascribing humanity to being an active participant in rigid dominance hierarchies in where “alphas” rule over everything, and then giving people the roles of “beta,” “gamma,” etc. It is unbelievably stupid, and it conduces humanity into a well-oiled machine that it really isn’t. It is not reflective of reality as people are messy by nature.

Systems are best used in more intellectual studies (which feature structured analysis such as academia) or in workplace enviornments with rigid hierarchies and ranks. Otherwise, I would think that human beings, their relationships, and motivations are a lot more complicated, and often illogical/irrational.

Ti-D: What makes hierarchies work? When are they appropriate to use, and what do they provide for people? Should they always strive for equality and justice? Why or why not?

Hierarchies work by making everyone involved play a specific role, to assure that systems remain running as they should. As I mentioned in the previous answer, you most typically see these in enviornments where everyone has a “role” to play, and everyone is to be judged equally according to the role they play. Two people who exist on a single rung are treated as indistinguishable from the other in order to eliminate special treatment, or to keep “cracks” from appearing because unequal treatment sews discord and rebellion. When it comes to selective applications such as workplaces and law, it is really important that nobody is treated differently compared to anyone else (within reason). Rules exist, and if you break them, then the punishment should be the same across the board.

Having a system such as these can offer people some form of security and regularity, and at least for me, a good way to explain my motivations for a decision if I need to. As long as I am adhering to a system, then the rules speak for themselves. At the various workplaces I have taken on, having a clear and effectively communicated system/procedure has helped me in dealing with customers, clients, suppliers, etc. I can have strong feelings about a customer (often negative), but I can then filter that perception through rule adherence. While I want to tell a customer to “go fuck themselves,” I can then explain to them that I’m “just following the rules,” and I can list them our policy.

However, like I said before, I think there is a danger in ascribing strict structures to human relationships, motivations, and even morality. Yes, our society can have rules that need to be followed for the sake of equality, but thinking that human beings follow those structures explicitly would be a mistake.

Ti-E: What does it mean for something to be logical? Is this the norm? Provide an example of something logical and illogical, and compare what makes the first logical and the second not.

Being logically consistent means your “premises” line up without any fallacies. “If A, then B. If B, then C; therefore if A, then C.” The important thing to recognize is that just because a conclusion is “logical,” it does not automatically mean it is correct. Your individual premises can be built on non-factual information, but can still line up to a logical endpoint.

For example, the example I used earlier to display logic was called hypothetical syllogism. This was explained to me in one of my university courses (amongst lots of other logical statements). Now if instead of A,B, and C; we replace them with empirically false statements, it might highlight what I’m talking about. Let’s say: All cats are blue. Anything blue must be able to fly. Therefore, all cats are able to fly.

That is a logically valid statement, because none of the premises contradict each other, and it lines up in a fluid manner. But you will (hopefully) notice that none of the empirical statements are correct. That is the danger with relying on “pure” logic, because while you might be able to invent structures that are cohesive, they are not going to automatically present fact. You need both logic and empiricism in tandem to come to the best conclusions. To answer the last question: something illogical would be any of the fallacies, such as a “false dilemma.” Providing only two mutually exclusive options to the person, when many more alternatives exist.

Again, I think “logic” is important in fields such as academia and in structures where rules exist to maintain order (workplace, government, law, etc). But when people try to superimpose “logic” to human relationships, motivations, sentimentality and morality, you are going to end up presenting humanity in a way that is not realistic. It removes context, which I believe is the ultimate driver in decision making. There is not going to always be a “one size fits all” approach to the “right” decision. In one circumstance, the typically “right” decision could be the wrong one; depending on the people you are with, their attitudes, the context of the situation around you, etc. Being primarily focused on logical consistency leaves you unable to adapt, and to prioritize people.

Introverted Feeling (Fi): Sentiments and Exclusivity

Fi-A: What does it mean to be emotionally close or distant to someone? In what ways can you adjust your “emotional distance” to someone else? For what reasons would you decide to do this?

For me, emotional distance is just the amount of time I choose to dedicate to a person. This can be in lots of different ways, and it typically depends on the person I’m dealing with (their attitudes, what they deem to be “meaningful,” etc). As for me, a better name to call it is “avaliability.”

If you are someone I’m really close to, or want to build a connection with, I will make the time to be available for you. It becomes an obligation to me, something that I have to do, otherwise it feels like I’m not a trustworthy friend, or someone worth keeping around. I like to stand on business, and make it explicitly clear through my actions (not necessarily words) as to where I stand with you. With my mother, I will almost always make it to family dinners/meetups every weekend (despite me just wanting to go home), because I feel like I instinctively know that it means a lot to her, and it’s how I can signal my care. With my little brother, when he felt depressed I made sure to invite him over to my apartment every day after work (even when I was exhausted), because I knew it meant a lot to him. With one close friend, she lots her cat while I was on my back from swimming laps. It almost felt like there was a driving force compelling me to look for the cat, not because I really cared about the cat per-se, but because I knew that is how I can signal our friendship (even if looking for the cat involved me trespassing and getting handcuffed by the cops lol). One coworker at work I make an effort to share Keurig coffee pods with, because she is a coffee aficionado, etc.

Most of the time, I’m pretty picky with the sorts of people I interact with. My mother has called me an “old man” since I was three years old, and I got a reputation for preferring to hang out with adults over kids my own age growing up. During school lunch periods, I would spend the vast majority of my time alone, and my mother recognized that I was “not lonely,” but if I wanted to talk to people, I would. It always annoyed me when people would accuse me of being heavily shy, and that’s not really the case.

When it comes to decreasing distance, this is not as common in my experience. Simply because, if I don’t want to talk to someone, I will make it as clear as possible from the onset that I don’t want to. I will keep responses brief, keep details about my life/interests private, and try to indicate through my body language (facing away from the person, multi-tasking with something else) that it’s not worth your energy talking to me. On the other hand, there are reasons for me to “close” the emotional distance with people that I previously trusted.

Usually it is when I feel like my efforts are either unnoticed, or I’ve have given multiple chances. One example if with my father. After I loaned him my scholarship money, I gave him multiple chances to make things right (first by paying me back). I don’t exactly know in hindsight what I was looking for, but I guess I wanted a “pound of flesh.” I wanted an indication that he cared for me outside of money, because that is all he ever cared and talked about growing up. I wanted that loyalty to hurt, because then it would make for a more meaningful action. My father has a habit of taking his family out for nice dinners, buying them clothes, etc. I never cared about any of that, and it feels exceptionally superficial to put me through things like that. But he did not pay me back the money, and after enough back and forth (and after he called me an asshole), I called him “worthless” and didn’t speak with him for two years.

Even now when our relationship has slightly improved, I feel no indication to give him the time of day. If he sends me a text, I have no problem ignoring it for a long time. If he says he is coming up to visit, I make no effort to sound that excited outside the bare minimum “that’s cool.” Some people might call it harsh, and it probably is. But I feel very little guilt, because he has demonstrated that he is not trustworthy, and has indicated little that he has genuinely changed. People are free to make whatever decisions they want; they can do things, like/dislike people (including me). But just as they have the right, I also have the right to choose the people I want in my life.

Fi-B: Share some thoughts on how you view love and desire. What makes a person desirable? Is this the norm? Are some people more deserving of these than others? Why or why not?

For me, what makes a person desirable often just depends on what I see. I often make a judgement on someone pretty shortly after I meet them, and I often examine how they act, not purely on what they say. Generally, I give more “points” to people who are understatedly good people, individuals who make decent choices in the moment and don’t talk about it. I don’t know why, but I tend to pick on that really easily, and I really value it when I see it. In contrast, I usually tend to dislike people pretty quick the more they talk about their supposed positive qualities. I really don’t take people based on what they say.

For example, my father used to take me on long drives and moralize about how good it is to help the poor and people who are in need. He once told me that he allowed a homeless man to sleep in his workshop because he did not have a place to stay.

Well, that sounds all good and all. But to me, it should be apparent that you help the poor. You shouldn’t have to tell me that you do it. When people do that, it makes me feel as if they are trying to sell me on a specific version of themselves, instead of who they truly are. People are made up of the choices they make, and the actions they commit to. When I look at my father, I just remember that lots of my family cut off contact from him because he ripped them off financially, and I just remember how he took loans from the Hell’s Angels, and put my mother’s name on the debt instead of his own.

To me, there are people who stand on their values, and commit to them through every small decision they make. If they are good (or actually trying to be decent), I’ll see that and I’ll stick with them. But there are plenty of people who simply put on the facade of being good, and I have no loyalty towards them.

Fi-C: Describe what morality means to you. What does it mean for something or someone to be good or bad? What does it take for something bad to become good? Are some things truly irredeemable? Why or why not?

Morality is not something that is firm or neatly defined by a single system. There are always going to be decisions that need to be made, that may contradict narrow definitions of good and evil. People who rely on structures to define what is “good” or unable to adapt to circumstances that might challenge them. It makes them unreliable in a pinch, or just plain unfair to people who don’t subscribe to their moral structures.

For example, I don’t have a very high opinion of overly religious people. It’s not that I automatically dislike them, but there is always going to be a point of where their alleigance to their system is going to overtake their loyalty to people who depend on them. This goes for any system, but I have poor experiences with religion-motivated decision making. I don’t have close ties to most of my family, and this is primarily because many excommunicated my mother for divorcing my father (who actively put his family at risk), and left us alone to fend for ourselves. My mother made the right decision, but it did not matter to them. Systems were valued over family, so I now say “screw systems.”

So when it comes to “bad things becoming good,” it depends on the context. Who is involved, what was the action committed, and what were the alternatives offered? Sometimes you are forced to “make the most” out of a series of bad decisions. In those situations, I rely on a sort of scarcity mindset. You can’t protect everyone, so you need to prioritize people. For example, I am applying to become an Air Combat Systems Officer. I make it a point to never enjoy ending someone’s life, but my duty is to protect the men and women who depend on me. If that requires me making an “immoral” decision or becoming the “bad guy” in someone’s story, then that’s just how it is. I take a similar approach to friendships and family. You are not going to make everyone happy, so you just need to prioritize the people who depend on you. If an immoral act secures their safety/happiness, then I consider it my duty to commit to that act.

For me, there are a few things that are irredeemable in a personal context. The first being repeated betrayal, or decisions that negatively (and deliberately) impact the people who are beside you. I have the mindset that you are free to make whatever choices you deem fit, but I also have the choice to associate with you or not. You have freedom, but that does not mean I have to like or respect your choices, and so I’ll decide to not let those people in my life, and I’ll have no difficulty creating (and maintaining) emotional distance. To forgive someone, I need long-term and consistent behaviour that indicates such a change. It feels wrong to let back someone in my life if there is not enough proof of positive change. There are some people (such as my little brother) who tell me that I hold “grudges” or I can be pretty vengeful; not willing to forgive people. But I see it as pretty stupid to forgive someone just because. What does it say about your relationships? Of who you are? If I did that, it feels like my loyalties are about as strong as wet tissue paper IMO.

Fi-D: How are people shaped by their relationships with their friends and family? How do these differ from romantic ones? Are non-romantic relationships more important than romantic ones? Why or why not?

I think you can tell a lot about a person by the sorts of people they associate with in general. The wider the social net, or the more effort someone puts into getting everyone to like them, the more flimsy their actual loyalties are. Again, I primarily operate on a sort of scarcity mindset. You can’t engage with everyone, so it’s up to me to find the people who are most important to priotitize. But it also makes me really picky when it comes to people, and I can find myself spending long periods alone. But I’d rather be alone than be with people I don’t want to associate with. Relationships with friends and family are more-so distinguished by the degree of “closeness” I have to specific people. When I was in high school, out of my friend group there were one or two people who I really prioritized. In my family, while it is pretty small, blood ties don’t mean nearly as much as loyalty. There are plenty of people in my family that I want to curbstomp.

Generally, I find that romantic relationships are more important because there is an expectation of increased intimacy and loyalty. With friends and family, you can many different relationships that exist on similar “tiers” of loyalty. But in a relationship, you are choosing that person at the expense of others, and considering how picky I am with people, if I decide to be in a relationship with that person, I’m making that commitment. So that person is going to come first before lots of my friends and family, who exist on “lesser” tiers of loyalty/commitment. It might make some people unhappy, but that’s unfortunately how life works out sometimes.

Fi-E: What can establishing new relationships with people do for someone? Is making new contacts with others more important than deepening the ones you have? Why or why not?

In my opinion, making new connections should never come at the expense of the ones you already have. Otherwise, I feel as if it indicates that my loyalties are not worth a whole lot. With that being said, I’m never completely writing off meeting new people, and I can be pretty cordial with new people (at least, I think so lol). But I feel that ties with people are commitments, and your ability to meet those commitments says a lot about you as a person. It demonstrates to the other person through action and decisions that they matter to you. So I’m almost always going to priotize those commitments over expanding my horizon, so-to-speak.

Introverted Sensing (Si): Aethestics and Physical States

Si-A: One of the key themes of the book “Atomic Habits” is that what people have in their surrounding environment is the greatest subconscious driver in how they live their lives. Do you agree? Why or why not? How can changing the environment around someone impact the way they live their life?

At least in my experience, one of the first things I do when I have any sort of goal in mind is to always make sure my affairs are in order. That way, I always have something to “fall back on” when life stressors get tough. The biggest way you can do that is through routines, and making sure your home or “safe space” is adequately comfortable and allows you to get your head back on straight. Then, it allows me to put my best foot forward tomorrow. It allows me to maintain a steady and consistent performance at work, or towards my goals. And you can do this anywhere and with any given environment or situation.

Si-B: How should people approach managing their health and well-being? How does this compare to the way you approach your own? When should people be taking their health and well-being into account? Why?

I think people should be taking their health into consideration passively, but consistently. There is no need to micromanage everything to maximize positive return (that just turns you into a paranoid health-nut). But making sure that there are small routines in place you commit to everyday, goes a long way in maximizing your performance and resilience to hardship. You can take a lot more punishment if you know that you have a calm, relaxing atmosphere when you get home. Or you can push yourself a lot harder at work when you know you have a nice walk afterwards.

On the job, I think getting things done takes prioritize over my own health (which it really shouldn’t). But I seperate my day into specific phases, in which I clearly carve out some “me time” in which I can recharge. Those times are to relax and to get my head on straight, but during work it’s time for me to be in the game. One of my coworkers makes it a point to take every single 15-min break at work, which while I understand he has a right to those breaks, I find that I slightly dislike him for doing so. My mindset is that I’ll relax when I get home.

Si-C: Think about the way sensations, both good and bad, shape the way people live and experience their lives. How important are experiencing good sensations in one’s life? Is there a limit to how much one should chase these? What role do negative sensations play in our lives?

Honestly, I think it just depends on the person. There are some people who spend their whole lives just trying to recreate positive physical states. While I respect the hustle (if you can call it that), I think comfort should never be prioritized over meaningful action. I have met people who don’t, and I feel that their lives just are stagnant. You can’t have progress without discomfort, and life is about being able to push through discomfort to maximize your life, with the help of routines that allow you to “recharge” in between bursts. But those comforts should never be the sole focus of your life, if that makes sense.

For example, at one of my previous jobs, I worked at a retro video game store (don’t judge me, my shop job cut my hours, and I needed the money). Overall, I spent over 6 years working at the location, as the owners were flexible enough to allow me to work while finishing up my university degree. I like video games as much as the next person, but there were lots of people who centered their entire personalities in trying to recapture their youth instead of creating something new. It just quickly became the same conversations over and over again, and it made me strongly dislike working there. It made me have a pretty negative disdain towards collectors, or people who dedicate their lives towards a form of escapism.

Actually, I guess I just dislike talking about my interests in general. They are there to help me get over a long day, and to make others comfortable when they come into my space. Maybe I also enjoy the perception of having “good taste” in things. But that’s really about it. Most conversations concerning my routines, interests, hobbies; just tend to be boring. I found that if people instead asked about my future goals, my university degree, etc; I am just a lot more receptive.

Si-D: Choose one of the following: art, clothing, photography, graphic design. What makes something well-designed in that area? How do the individual components work together to generate the experience?

I will use the example of clothing to explain what makes something aesthetically pleasing (I guess). So the biggest thing people need to worry about is colours. Does it match your skin-tone, your hair colour, your physical frame, etc? There are just some colours that pair well with some people, and others, not really… You also need to consider how it clashes with the rest of the outfit. Generally, you want to layer, and colour coordinate in a way that goes from light-to-dark (starting from the innermost layer).

That’s really about it. Generally when I pick out clothing, I just have a strong gut feeling about how good it looks, and go based on that. It can sometimes make me somewhat of an impulsive spender when I see a particular jacket that I think would coordinate well with the rest of my clothes. I take the same approach when examining what other people wear to, and how I feel about it. There are just some outfits that look downright terrible, and it makes someone look like a douche-nozzel. Other times, I will look at someone and feel “man, that person cleans up nice.” It usually depends on the person, their personality, and the sort of image they want to convey with their clothes.

Si-E: Describe what your living and working environments are like. How do they effect you? Would other people be similarly affected in the same environment? Why or why not? What changes could you make to improve it? How would these be beneficial?

I tend to make a clear distinction between my living and working environments. When it comes to work, I have no issue working in more chaos-oriented spaces as long as things are moving. Of course, I will always try to be as organized as possible, but I can tolerate chaos without getting stressed too much. This is all because I make sure my home environment is comfortable, clean and cozy. Knowing that I have that to fall back on as a place to recharge (no matter how tough my day gets) allows me to stay relatively flexible on the job. In contrast, I find that some of my coworkers react pretty poorly to workplace stress and conflict, likely because they don’t take decent care of themselves when they get home.

As for what changes I could make to improve upon it, I don’t really have suggestions. I make sure to walk to work (and back) because the fresh air/exercise allows me to get my head on straight, I make a decent breakfast every morning, etc. My space is clean, comfortable, and relatively aesthetic. I’ve been told that I have an aptitude for interior decorationg (which my father likes to take credit for as he made me set us his various shops/businesses when I was younger), but I felt that I always had that strength. I dislike it when people focus too much on that side of me though, as I prefer to treat it as a mechanism to keep me running at my best, rather than it being the focal point of my personality.

Introverted Inuition (Ni) - Cause and Effect

Ni-A: How do people’s relationships with the past, present and future influence the way they live? To what extent does this effect them? How does this influence your own life?

I believe that everyone is subject to cause and effect, and is a manifestation of past events and circumstances combining together to create your worldview, beliefs, and future goals. Nothing happens in isolation. As for me, I like to treat my life as a story in which I am an active author of. It helps me gain meaning/perspective on some of the worse things that happened in my earlier life. If everything, both positive and negative, play a role in shaping who I am going to be in the future, than every decision I make I try to take into account those specific impacts/patterns.

Ni-B: What does it mean for a person to be in a specific “phase” of their life? What puts people into “phases” they’re currently in? How does this affect the way people live their lives?

Like I said before, I like to treat my life as a story in which I am an active participant in creating. At every point of my life, I’m looking at the future and finding activities/goals that will shape myself into the person I want to be. So I guess at every point of myself being alive, I’m in a “phase” of development of which is continuously ongoing.

I don’t really know what or “who” puts people into those specific phases. Largely, I’m only concerned with my own development, and only think of other people in phases when they are looking towards future goals (and developing themselves to get themselves in the “right position” to pursue them). But I guess if you are looking at your future self, developing yourself to slowly mould yourself into that individual can serve as a constant motivator.

Ni-C: How do you anticipate events unfolding? How can you observe them unfolding in your environment? How do you adjust yourself towards the way things are developing? Provide some examples.

Unfortunately, I’m not omnipotent, and I’m generally better at reacting to new events instead of being proactive in anticipating them. When I anticipate events, it is usually centered on specific people and how they will react when provoked in a certain way. This is somewhat of a source of anxiety for me, because I have a reputation as someone who has the worst luck. So I’m always expecting the worst, but usually my adaptations revolve around me keeping calm and flexible enough to tackle new problems. If I try to be proactive, I have a habit of thinking too deeply in how events might proceed, which only causes more anxiety.

Generally, I just find the best way to adapt to new information/events is just by being flexible, calm, and taking care of yourself (providing a place for you to recharge). Or just honestly staying away from situations in which events stem too far into the future. Actually, I find myself getting annoyed at people who tell me events that are going to happen, but they are too far in the future for me to actively do anything about. That drives me up the wall. If you are going to tell me something, keep it in the range in which I can get to work as quick as possible. If you make me wait, it is only going to make me nervous.

For example, this is just something minor, but back throughout my life as a student, whenever I got an assignment I would make it a point to finish it as quick as possible. The teacher could give me a whole month to work on it, but how the hell do I know what might happen in those few weeks? If I don’t get started on it now, then I might not have enough time at the finish. So I would often spend my break periods at school working on assignments before I got home. My classmates thought I did it because I was a good student, but I primarily did it because having deadlines hang over me leaves me on edge. Being able to get it done immediately allows me to feel some sort of control, instead of just leaving the whole thing “up in the air” for something (or someone) to potentially fuck up.

Ni-D: Think about the way you experience the pace and rhythm of your life? What dictates the speed of which time flies? Why do you think people experience time at differing rates?

Personally, I find that time flies faster when you have an objective you are actively working towards. This can happen in both the short and the long term. For example, while at work I find that time goes much faster when I have enough pressure placed on me to get things done. It is when I fall into a state of flow, in which time seamlessly moves forward without me thinking about it. I love being in that state. Whereas when I’m at work where there is a leisurely pace, it’s much more difficult to regulate my pace, or feel as if I am moving “fast enough.” In the long term, I feel most secure when working towards a meaningful goal, and when my day-to-day life is filled with work that contributes to lots of positive momentum. I cam only speak for myself though, and I’m not all that knowledgable at how people might percieve the flow of time.

Ni-E: Consider each of the following feelings people have about time: hurriedness, anxiety, optimism/pessimism, etc. What causes people to experience such feelings? What role do they play in their lives? To what extent are these feelings beneficial?

Those feelings are usually a result of being aware of a future event, but not being able to do anything to effect it in the present. In my life, those feelings usually motivate me to “move” accordingly. I just hate the idea of simply waiting for something to happen (especially something negative) and not being able to do anything to change the outcome into something positive. Action is usually better than inaction, and then you can potentially “mould” the event into something you might be able to manage… Or you might not. But you won’t know until you try.

So I have a reputation of being relatively impatient, but having a certain “drive” to get started on things, once I’m told something needs to get done. Having those tasks float around in my head rent-free stresses me out, so I take action to alleviate that anxiety.