More thoughts on interpreting symbols in socionics 2.0 - Page 2

labcoat · 03-06-2010, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Sentiment vs. passion:

Passionate | Define Passionate at Dictionary.com
Sentimental | Define Sentimental at Dictionary.com

Passionate types: Ti/Fe valuing
Sentimental types: Te/Fi valuing

This is still a little incomplete. Irrationals are also generally more sentimental than Rationals and vice versa.

Dynamics are also slightly more sentimental than Statics and vice versa.

labcoat · 03-06-2010, 10:25 PM

Subtypes...

Every person posesses a subtype relative to an environment. A person can be one subtype in one environment and another in another. Knowledge within a specific field makes one progress along the subtype spectrum for that particular field only. Starting afresh in any field makes one revert to the initial "null" subtype.

I think there is great potential in assigning subtypes along the quadra spectrum, thus creating an interpretation very similar to that of smilexian type changes but compatible with the view that types are stable and unchanging.

An introduction that I think would go well with this interpretation is that of inter-quadra supervision: quadras supervise the quadra to the concrete side of them in the spectrum. Alpha supervises Beta, Beta supervises Gamma, Gamma supervises Delta, Delta supervises Alpha...

As always all of this is experimental.

labcoat · 03-07-2010, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socionics.com on ISFps

In moments of passionate conversation they can often swallow air like a fish.

What I thought of when reading that.

labcoat · 03-07-2010, 05:00 PM

You start.

Pied Piper · 03-08-2010, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuturututu

You really are stupid. I thought you were more intelligent when it comes to connecting dots. Stupid Ti subtype.

That's rather weak and subdued intuition, not necessary a lack of intelligence.

I agree he's the Ti subtype

.

labcoat · 03-08-2010, 09:16 PM

Weak intuition how? I understand tuturututu's post to such depths as to know exactly in which ways it is irrelevant to my writings in this thread. Sometimes the emperor is just naked.

Pinocchio: the more you get invested in the position that I am an S type (ridiculous!) the more damage you incur when retract said position. Actually, scrap that, the damage is already being done but you'll only realize it by then. You really aren't on the right track here.

labcoat · 03-18-2010, 12:02 AM

Imported:

People on forums like these tend to mistake two concepts for eachother: that of focussing on specifics and focussing on details, neither of which necessitates or excludes the other. It is, for example, possible to focus on the details of a theoretical account, or to cognize a specific thing in an inprecise way. In my opinion, the interest in specifics is related to S and T functions, and the interest in details to J functions in general (notice how fact and detail are synonymous in a lot of contexts).

Another thing about this.

One interpretation of Creating that I like to use is that of "focussing" (Limiting when Static, means the focal point lies outside of oneself rather than on one's experiences).

Process is the property of having a Creating function that is more practical/specific than one's Accepting function (T is more practical/specific than N, and S more so than T, the rest are trickier so this mainly only works when applied to T types).

Hence, Process is in a sense the property of "focussing on specifics" or "focussing on what is relatively specific in your frame of reference".

labcoat · 03-18-2010, 12:06 AM

So let's focus on the difference between S and T. I say they both are about specifics, but how do the two differ?

I'm thinking along these lines...

S is about pointing at something specific, whereas T is about attributing some effect to the specifics of the thing.

S says "concerning the specifics"
T says "depends on the specifics"

labcoat · 03-18-2010, 12:18 AM

J functions are also about relations, differences. Why are relations and differences interchangeable here? Because any two different things are intrinsically related in some way that can be named.

I like to use the word "comparison" as well.

Now what I believe is that when difference is registered "using" the T function, one does not learn anything about the nature of the relation between the two entities. The difference is arbitrary and simply given a name. An F function, on the other hand, registers very subtle differences, thus being capable of grasping the exact nature of the relation, capable of breaking up the relation into it's meaningful parts.

Now... There is a certain context in which an understanding of a large, arbitrary difference turns into an understanding of small, meaningful differences. This happens when the person takes two entities that are different in many respects and then finds all of the intermediate entities via which the first entity can morph into the second by means of small changes.

This story seems to be related to the + and - aspects of functions somehow. Positing any two specific "S" entities means that the arbitrary "T" relation appears by itself. Taking a specific "S" entity and changing it in a subtle "F" way produces a new "S" entity. S produces T, F produces S. "Produces" is the "left is +, right is -" relation.

labcoat · 03-18-2010, 12:59 PM

Imported:

ESTps are a Result type, so they prefer not to overextend themselves. They spend their energy in brief, controlled doses. ESFps are different. They tend to go all the way at a single thing they have in their mind, like a gambler at a roulette table putting all their chips on Black. For this reason ESFps are likely to appear far more aggressive than ESTps, far more fanatical and acutely dangerous. The danger of an ESTp is of a more lasting, strategical kind.

Ps. their being Serious helps at upholding an image of badassery too in that it makes their communcation style harsher than that of ESTps. ESTps have been known to be charismatic (Churchill) and are very often capable rethoricicians (sp...). They aren't above a little use of Fe to attain the practical control that they live for.

tcaudilllg · 03-27-2010, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by labcoat

Rationals are negotiating types. They believe that the goal in any discussion is to make a compromise with the opposing party. Irrationals are more likely to stick to their guns and refuse to make concessions.

How did you come by this conclusion?

silverchris9 · 03-27-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuturututu's signature

just because she's nice, doesn't mean she's not an IEI.

Now I'm in TWO people's signatures! silverchris9, taking over the16types one signature at a time...

labcoat · 03-27-2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

How did you come by this conclusion?

In Rationals, the Static ("introverted") Judging functions are Empowering (= possessing a degree of freedom; choice). This means Rationals have the ability to choose their conclusions, to take one among a number of options. The choice is usually one that suits the person's ends, which in turn is usually some verdict another person has supplied that one might wish to ally with.

labcoat · 04-02-2010, 11:36 AM

Accepting functions are instinctive, reactive. The occasion for the mental activity is an event that happens to the person in which s/he is the passive observer. The reaction to the event can be an active one, but the occasion itself is one in which the person has no part. The Dynamics, observationals, of the situation are singular.

Creating functions are initiative taking, focussedly agentive, also intelligent and complex in the way Accepting functions aren't. The occasion for the mental activity is in many previous events. The comprehension given by these functions has a long learning history.

labcoat · 04-02-2010, 11:55 AM

Accepting Dynamic (Limiting) functions are about acknowledging the event, responding to it in an unpresumptuous, prudent way. The reaction is a neccessitated.

Accepting Static (Empowering) functions are about defying the event, finding some original, quirky or unpredictable way to respond to it. The reaction is a choice.

Creating Dynamic (Empowering) functions are about either gathering information on a complex topic, relating a part of the problem viewed from one's own perspective, pretending to understand the complexities when one really doesn't, or picking a reaction within a set of possible correct ones on the basis of understanding of the complexities. The focus is on the shallow perception of the complexities, but also on gathering as broad as possible a database of information on the issue.

Creating Static (Limiting) functions are about pinpointing the essence of a complex phenomenom through mental focus. Finding it's most precise and minimalistic description. The tendency is on believing one has enough information on the issue and a shortcut to a complete understanding is constantly sought.

ArchonAlarion · 04-02-2010, 05:43 PM

This seems to fit with my observations, especially about the compromise/radical dichotomy that parallels j/p

labcoat · 04-02-2010, 05:50 PM

Remember that part is about Rational/Irrational as pertaining to types, not functions. If you apply it to functions things will mess up completely.

ENTp made more sense for you, btw. (just my opinion)

warrior-librarian · 04-03-2010, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by labcoat

An introduction that I think would go well with this interpretation is that of inter-quadra supervision: quadras supervise the quadra to the concrete side of them in the spectrum. Alpha supervises Beta, Beta supervises Gamma, Gamma supervises Delta, Delta supervises Alpha...

As always all of this is experimental.

What you say is true for the left ring (process types). Its the reverse direction for the result types.

labcoat · 04-03-2010, 03:47 AM

That's the theory that Accepting functions supervise Creating functions. I introduce the proposition that - functions supervise + functions. This is to say, an INTj has the mentality to correct the mistakes of an ISTj, but also of an ESTp. The INTj-ESTp is very contradictory. It is a mutual supervision. In an INTj-ISTj relation, the INTj has the advantage and in an INFj-INTj relation, the INFj has an adavantage over the INTj.

One implication is that for Result types, the benefit and supervisor relations don't work well. They're contradictory.

Brilliand · 04-03-2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by labcoat

That's the theory that Accepting functions supervise Creating functions. I introduce the proposition that + functions supervise - functions. This is to say, an INTj has the mentality to correct the mistakes of an ISTj, but also of an ESTp. The INTj-ESTp is very contradictory. It is a mutual supervision. In an INTj-ISTj relation, the INTj has the advantage and in an INFj-INTj relation, the INFj has an adavantage over the INTj.

Odd... I thought that it would be the other way around (the more "advanced" type, that is the one with certainty in the area, would have the advantage).

03-06-2010, 10:25 PM	#22 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	Subtypes... Every person posesses a subtype relative to an environment. A person can be one subtype in one environment and another in another. Knowledge within a specific field makes one progress along the subtype spectrum for that particular field only. Starting afresh in any field makes one revert to the initial "null" subtype. I think there is great potential in assigning subtypes along the quadra spectrum, thus creating an interpretation very similar to that of smilexian type changes but compatible with the view that types are stable and unchanging. An introduction that I think would go well with this interpretation is that of inter-quadra supervision: quadras supervise the quadra to the concrete side of them in the spectrum. Alpha supervises Beta, Beta supervises Gamma, Gamma supervises Delta, Delta supervises Alpha... As always all of this is experimental. __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way...

03-07-2010, 05:00 PM	#24 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	You start. __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way...

03-08-2010, 09:16 PM	#26 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	Weak intuition how? I understand tuturututu's post to such depths as to know exactly in which ways it is irrelevant to my writings in this thread. Sometimes the emperor is just naked. Pinocchio: the more you get invested in the position that I am an S type (ridiculous!) the more damage you incur when retract said position. Actually, scrap that, the damage is already being done but you'll only realize it by then. You really aren't on the right track here. __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way... Last edited by labcoat; 03-09-2010 at 12:09 AM.

03-18-2010, 12:02 AM	#27 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	Imported: People on forums like these tend to mistake two concepts for eachother: that of focussing on specifics and focussing on details, neither of which necessitates or excludes the other. It is, for example, possible to focus on the details of a theoretical account, or to cognize a specific thing in an inprecise way. In my opinion, the interest in specifics is related to S and T functions, and the interest in details to J functions in general (notice how fact and detail are synonymous in a lot of contexts). Another thing about this. One interpretation of Creating that I like to use is that of "focussing" (Limiting when Static, means the focal point lies outside of oneself rather than on one's experiences). Process is the property of having a Creating function that is more practical/specific than one's Accepting function (T is more practical/specific than N, and S more so than T, the rest are trickier so this mainly only works when applied to T types). Hence, Process is in a sense the property of "focussing on specifics" or "focussing on what is relatively specific in your frame of reference". __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way...

03-18-2010, 12:06 AM	#28 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	So let's focus on the difference between S and T. I say they both are about specifics, but how do the two differ? I'm thinking along these lines... S is about pointing at something specific, whereas T is about attributing some effect to the specifics of the thing. S says "concerning the specifics" T says "depends on the specifics" __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way...

03-18-2010, 12:18 AM	#29 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	J functions are also about relations, differences. Why are relations and differences interchangeable here? Because any two different things are intrinsically related in some way that can be named. I like to use the word "comparison" as well. Now what I believe is that when difference is registered "using" the T function, one does not learn anything about the nature of the relation between the two entities. The difference is arbitrary and simply given a name. An F function, on the other hand, registers very subtle differences, thus being capable of grasping the exact nature of the relation, capable of breaking up the relation into it's meaningful parts. Now... There is a certain context in which an understanding of a large, arbitrary difference turns into an understanding of small, meaningful differences. This happens when the person takes two entities that are different in many respects and then finds all of the intermediate entities via which the first entity can morph into the second by means of small changes. This story seems to be related to the + and - aspects of functions somehow. Positing any two specific "S" entities means that the arbitrary "T" relation appears by itself. Taking a specific "S" entity and changing it in a subtle "F" way produces a new "S" entity. S produces T, F produces S. "Produces" is the "left is +, right is -" relation. __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way... Last edited by labcoat; 03-18-2010 at 12:39 AM.

03-18-2010, 12:59 PM	#30 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	Imported: ESTps are a Result type, so they prefer not to overextend themselves. They spend their energy in brief, controlled doses. ESFps are different. They tend to go all the way at a single thing they have in their mind, like a gambler at a roulette table putting all their chips on Black. For this reason ESFps are likely to appear far more aggressive than ESTps, far more fanatical and acutely dangerous. The danger of an ESTp is of a more lasting, strategical kind. Ps. their being Serious helps at upholding an image of badassery too in that it makes their communcation style harsher than that of ESTps. ESTps have been known to be charismatic (Churchill) and are very often capable rethoricicians (sp...). They aren't above a little use of Fe to attain the practical control that they live for. __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way...

04-02-2010, 11:36 AM	#34 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	Accepting functions are instinctive, reactive. The occasion for the mental activity is an event that happens to the person in which s/he is the passive observer. The reaction to the event can be an active one, but the occasion itself is one in which the person has no part. The Dynamics, observationals, of the situation are singular. Creating functions are initiative taking, focussedly agentive, also intelligent and complex in the way Accepting functions aren't. The occasion for the mental activity is in many previous events. The comprehension given by these functions has a long learning history. __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way...

04-02-2010, 11:55 AM	#35 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	Accepting Dynamic (Limiting) functions are about acknowledging the event, responding to it in an unpresumptuous, prudent way. The reaction is a neccessitated. Accepting Static (Empowering) functions are about defying the event, finding some original, quirky or unpredictable way to respond to it. The reaction is a choice. Creating Dynamic (Empowering) functions are about either gathering information on a complex topic, relating a part of the problem viewed from one's own perspective, pretending to understand the complexities when one really doesn't, or picking a reaction within a set of possible correct ones on the basis of understanding of the complexities. The focus is on the shallow perception of the complexities, but also on gathering as broad as possible a database of information on the issue. Creating Static (Limiting) functions are about pinpointing the essence of a complex phenomenom through mental focus. Finding it's most precise and minimalistic description. The tendency is on believing one has enough information on the issue and a shortcut to a complete understanding is constantly sought. __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way...

04-02-2010, 05:43 PM	#36 (permalink)
ArchonAlarion Weaver of Fate Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 3,720 Blog Entries: 4	This seems to fit with my observations, especially about the compromise/radical dichotomy that parallels j/p __________________ ENT (NeTi) 5w4 so/sx Suddenly he realized what the answer to the problem was, and it was this, that something very weird was happening; and if something very weird was happening, he thought, he wanted it to be happening to him. -Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy

04-02-2010, 05:50 PM	#37 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	Remember that part is about Rational/Irrational as pertaining to types, not functions. If you apply it to functions things will mess up completely. ENTp made more sense for you, btw. (just my opinion) __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way...

04-03-2010, 03:47 AM	#39 (permalink)
labcoat retro stuffs Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,772	That's the theory that Accepting functions supervise Creating functions. I introduce the proposition that - functions supervise + functions. This is to say, an INTj has the mentality to correct the mistakes of an ISTj, but also of an ESTp. The INTj-ESTp is very contradictory. It is a mutual supervision. In an INTj-ISTj relation, the INTj has the advantage and in an INFj-INTj relation, the INFj has an adavantage over the INTj. One implication is that for Result types, the benefit and supervisor relations don't work well. They're contradictory. __________________ INTj Objection! Oh by the way... Last edited by labcoat; 04-06-2010 at 02:23 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode