labcoat

To be able to destroy and reshape the other's axioms is to have power over everything they do. The common perception of Beta STs as primitive, simple types of people is fostered by the fact that socionics is made by alpha NTs.

But it also works that way between Delta NF and Alpha NT. INFjs can guilt trip us into doing anything.

The thing about Result supervision not working well is an opinion I've seen being expressed by at least one other person (John Do).

Besides, if the advantage did belong to the "furthest advanced" person, supervision would not be the right term for the advantage. The advantage would consist in a lack of overarching awareness, not an abundance of it.

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Brilliand

I suppose this means i.e. + supervises -.

__________________
LII-Ne

The majority is only right when I'm in it.

Johari

labcoat

Yes. Typo corrected.

No, just Ti- supervises Ti+, Ne- Ne+, etc.

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Brilliand

In that case, you should probably change "Accepting functions supervise Creating functions" to "Creating functions supervise Accepting functions."

__________________
LII-Ne

The majority is only right when I'm in it.

Johari

labcoat

No. What on earth are you talking about?

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

labcoat

Combining Rational/Irrational with Democracy/Aristocracy and Process/Result is interesting.

A Democrat/Result/Rational is an uncommitted team player. Someone who finds himself in a position where it is very easy to join and leave groups. Someone who opportunistically makes deals and alliances. It could be viewed as a kind of trader.

An Aristocrat/Process/Rational is a committed team player. Someone associated with a particular team that s/he supports with loyalty.

The irrationals are more difficult to describe.

Democrat/Process/Irrational: someone free to pursue his/her own interests outside of the influence of others. A true free spirit. It needs not pay much heed to the world around it or adjust to said world. It can simply focus on it's object of interest.

Aristocrat/Result/Irrational: someone who also has personal interests in mind, but is somehow limited by his/her identity or position in life. Someone who is born as a human can not simply "want to be cat". So the person has to adjust him/herself to the conditions s/he finds him/herself in. Unlike in the case of the Democrat/Process/Irrationals which focus on ideas, the person is limited by the real conditions s/he is in.

The quality of adjustment and frequent changes of plans refers to Result here and the opposite to Process.

Ok, that's my best attempt at it so far.

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Pied Piper

Labcoat, for your information, I should tell you my opinions onf Process/Result:

I know only the description off the Wikisocion, but I can tell you for sure, taking me as an example:
- "Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end. " - I'm definitely the opposite. Definitely and clearly, without any spot of doubt. I'm doing things by "probing", randomly, sometimes I take them backwards, as in the "Result" description.
- "Immersed to a process and tends to single-tasking." - that's correct, but for all Fe/Ti types. To a lesser extent Beta Irrationals, they're more detached but it has a logical explanation anyway.
- "Focus between the beggining and the end of processes." - I would not understand what that means without peeping to the second description. That from Process definitely applies to me, but to all Statics as well, lol. Did someone saw a Static interested in something else than the results so far?
- "More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beggining to the end." - no, no, clearly no - it is a peculiarity of mine to jump right to the summary or turn the pages over to see some "handle" to take things from. I'm in trouble with the documentation whose chapters depend on one another.
---

I don't know if the categories defined by this dichotomy are real, but in any case, the descriptions are bogus. Maybe that team stuff you're talking about is correct. If you can limit to this dichotomy only, I'd like to know your view on it, independently of what's written on Wikisocion (those descriptions should be erased, imo).

__________________
Shock Intuition, Diamond Logic
---

"Δ slept with her"
"Γ made love to her"
"Β had sex with her"
"Α fu**ed her"

labcoat

It's about going all the way at things. You are a prime example of it. When you have an opinion on someone's type you mobilize every resource and propone the view with very strong devotion. ENTps do this, ISTjs do this, but INTjs and ESTps do not. The latter dose themselves more carefully, are more capable of retreating gracefully.

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Pied Piper

That could make sense, I'll keep an eye on it and check for all the types.

__________________
Shock Intuition, Diamond Logic
---

"Δ slept with her"
"Γ made love to her"
"Β had sex with her"
"Α fu**ed her"

labcoat

Result is also related to that sense of prejudice that you once described. The difference is in what the two do when encountering a new situation. The Process type gets interested in the situation and turns it into an obsession. The Result type labels the new situation a trivialty in light of his preconceptions.

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

ArchonAlarion

Ah, that makes sense. I had the same complaint about process/result, because I tend to focus on the interesting points of a process, rather than the step by step conclusion.

__________________
ITN 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

labcoat

Limiting Pi vs. Limiting Pe.

The former of these concerns a phenomenological percept, something in the experience of the person.

The latter concerns a conceptual representation, something composed of many percepts, many experiences, that links these and structures these.

The former is focussed on by Irrationals, the latter by Rationals.

Limiting Pi is about looking upwards in the hierarchy of complexity and seeing all layers up to the most unnamably profound ones. However, one can not understand the complexity in a useful way. One can only marvel.

Limiting Pe is about looking downwards is the hierarchy of complexity and seeing only the layers below a vantage point that one has climbed up to. The scope of this mentality is more limited, but the advantage is that one can break down and explain everything one comes across in the picture one observes.

Maybe I should be saying these things about Accepting P and Creating P instead (respectively).

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

labcoat

Dynamic functions are related to the notion of syntax, Static functions related to the notion of semantics.

Pi is a semantically void symbol. It is defined entirely in terms of the context it is found in: entirely by it's syntax.

This, in combination with my ideas about P being related to noun-phrases and J being related to verb-phrases should give me a basis for understanding the relation between language and the socionics functions.

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

labcoat

I've recently said something along the lines of:
Empowering Accepting Static = defying circumstances

What does this mean in relation to Accepting/Empowering Fi?

Turning the other cheek. It means being more benevolent and friendly than people expect you to be. Going out of your way to be ethical. Offering friendships and deals without sufficient promise of their return. Charity is a manifestation of it.

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

labcoat

Making all properties within a certain context defined means that only "one" entity is singled out. To leave a property undefined is to group multiple possible objects together, as the specification of said property determines which particular object emerges. Hence, "particular object" and "well-defined object" are synonyms, as are "object of certain class" and "not-well-defined object".

ST means take two particular objects and conclude that they are different. The conclusion is tautological.

NT means take two partially defined objects and conclude that their full identity is always different. The conclusion is not tautological. This is linked to the implication rule somehow. One class of objects is found to be subset of another class of objects. A hierarchization (sequence) of classes emerges.

NF means take two partially defined objects and conclude that they are different in a certain respect. The conclusion is tautological: the respect denotes the class of the partial definition of the two.

SF means take two particular objects and identify some respect in which they are different. The result is not tautological... It is however also not deterministically necessitated. There are multiple answers to the question. When applied multiple times, a sequence of objects via which the second object can be reached from the first emerges.

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

labcoat

"Empowering" means "part of the whole", "not everything there is to the topic".

To orient by a part of the whole as opposed to to the whole, is to act in the absence of full understanding. It is to take a risk of some kind.

Creating/Dynamic/Empowering is about handling a complex topic (one in which you are concerned with getting a perfect result) that you understand only a part of. As a Creating function it is vulnerable to supervision from the Accepting function opposite in External/Internal to it. It is a risk where you are the one that gets hurt if the action backfires.

Accepting/Static/Empowering is about doing something quirky in a situation in which you are laconical about what happens. Your function is not vulnerable to supervision and is capable of supervising another person's Creating function. It is about taking a risk where another person get's hurt when things go wrong.

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

labcoat

The Result types have a more negotiatory attitude towards their supervisors/supervisees/benficiaries/benefactors than the Process types. They find it easier to accept advice from their 'superiors' and are less harsh in dishing out punishments to their 'inferiors'.

... if I am right about this stuff. It's still something I'm not 100% sure of.

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

labcoat

Chat conversation on the obscure large cycle Reinin dichotomies (starts at the bottom):

28/04/2010 20:36 <tuturututu> " Strategic: Strong judicious function is limiting" - this kinda makes sense on first glance
28/04/2010 20:36 <labcoat> I guess not, sorry
28/04/2010 20:35 <labcoat> tut: can you do that in terms of valued/unvalued
28/04/2010 20:35 <labcoat> Empowering are the more freewheeling, choicelike functions, Limiting the more necessitated, forced ones
28/04/2010 20:34 <tuturututu> Tactical: Strong judicious function is empowering, strong resolute function is limiting
28/04/2010 20:34 <tuturututu> Strategic: Strong judicious function is limiting, strong resolute function is empowering
28/04/2010 20:32 <Aiss> empowering/limited?
28/04/2010 20:27 <tuturututu> I might be onto something...wait a moment
28/04/2010 20:27 <tuturututu> as in Emp/Dyn/Cre
28/04/2010 20:26 <labcoat> according to dimensionality theory, the Ni is Lim, but I see
28/04/2010 20:24 <tuturututu> your Ni is Emp and your Ne is Lim
28/04/2010 20:23 <tuturututu> those don't exist
28/04/2010 20:22 <labcoat> Strong Lim/N & Emp/S
28/04/2010 20:21 <labcoat> same, except strong functions?
28/04/2010 20:16 <tuturututu> sorry, don't have any
28/04/2010 20:16 <labcoat> need pen & paper
28/04/2010 20:14 <labcoat> dang
28/04/2010 20:14 <tuturututu> Ne/Si
28/04/2010 20:13 <labcoat> strategic
28/04/2010 20:13 <labcoat> no.
28/04/2010 20:13 <labcoat> tactical?
28/04/2010 20:12 <labcoat> what do you get if you use object/N and field/S
28/04/2010 20:12 <tuturututu> valued functions as well
28/04/2010 20:11 <labcoat> in the former, the reality is singular, the latter the plan
28/04/2010 20:11 <tuturututu> Carefree: Lim/S & Emp/N
28/04/2010 20:11 <tuturututu> Calculated: Lim/N & Emp/S
28/04/2010 20:11 <labcoat> carefree/calculated...
28/04/2010 20:10 <labcoat> Limiting is what is not and what is henceforth protected
28/04/2010 20:10 <labcoat> Empowering is what is negotiable, changable, alterable
28/04/2010 20:09 <labcoat> interest protecting = Limiting F, resource protecting = Limiting T
28/04/2010 20:09 <labcoat> interest protecting, resource protecting....
28/04/2010 20:06 <labcoat> well get round to it
28/04/2010 20:06 <tuturututu> probably
28/04/2010 20:06 <tuturututu> it should be fairly easy to do now
28/04/2010 20:05 <tuturututu> dunno, haven't took a look at that
28/04/2010 20:05 <labcoat> introvert/extrovert?
28/04/2010 20:05 <labcoat> what about emotism?
28/04/2010 20:04 <tuturututu> that goes for valued functions
28/04/2010 20:03 <tuturututu> from your own well
28/04/2010 20:02 <labcoat> interesting
28/04/2010 20:02 <tuturututu> Draw your conclusions from there:
28/04/2010 20:02 <tuturututu> Compliant: Lim/T & Emp/F
28/04/2010 20:01 <tuturututu> Obstinate: Lim/F & Emp/T

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

labcoat

Continuation, again starts at the bottom:

28/04/2010 21:39 <labcoat> Accepting/Creating is the same thing as dominant/secundary
28/04/2010 21:38 <April> i wouldn't mind making something, but i'd have to understand it first 28/04/2010 21:37 <April> *beats head against wall*
28/04/2010 21:37 <April> i found a table with all of the types and the reinin dichotomies, but not one that's broken up by functions and contains accepting/creating/limiting/empowering... something like that would be very helpful.
28/04/2010 21:18 <look.to.the.sky> oh my
28/04/2010 21:13 <Aiss> ok
28/04/2010 21:13 <labcoat> in the answer to your first quesiton, it doesn't matter
28/04/2010 21:12 <Aiss> yes but you earlier said "for dynamic types", so I wasn't sure.
28/04/2010 21:12 <labcoat> no such thing as an accepting type
28/04/2010 21:12 <labcoat> functions
28/04/2010 21:11 <Aiss> you mean "dynamic/static" as in types, or functions?
28/04/2010 21:10 <Aiss> yes, I realized it's wrong.
28/04/2010 21:09 <labcoat> Creating/Limiting/Static = assuming you understand a complex topic
28/04/2010 21:09 <tuturututu> i.e. Base, PoLR, HA and Ignoring
28/04/2010 21:09 <labcoat> Creating/Empowering/Dynamic = finding something you want to understand better
28/04/2010 21:09 <tuturututu> Inert: 1st 4th 6th and 7th in model A, if I recall correctly
28/04/2010 21:08 <labcoat> Accepting/Empowering/Static = acknowledging a possible state of affairs outside of oneself linked to what was seen at face value
28/04/2010 21:08 <labcoat> Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic = acknowledging something at face value
28/04/2010 21:08 <Aiss> I see it doesn't work.
28/04/2010 21:07 <labcoat> not sure, i dont think so tbh
28/04/2010 21:07 <Aiss> no, sorry.
28/04/2010 21:06 <Aiss> ... inert/contact, then?
28/04/2010 21:06 <labcoat> Empowering Dynamic = Creating, Limiting Static = Creating, Empowering Static = Accepting
28/04/2010 21:05 <labcoat> Limiting/Dynamic = Accepting
28/04/2010 21:05 <labcoat> no static
28/04/2010 21:05 <labcoat> for Dynamic types
28/04/2010 21:04 <Aiss> empowering/limiting is the same as accepting/producing?
28/04/2010 21:02 <tuturututu> JohnDo would get a spontaneous erection if he were to see this
28/04/2010 20:58 <tuturututu> haven't seen anyone doing that
28/04/2010 20:57 <tuturututu> this limitimg-empowering thing can be applied in defining some small reinin groups.
28/04/2010 20:57 <look.to.the.sky> hmm lol
28/04/2010 20:55 <labcoat> sort of
28/04/2010 20:55 <tuturututu> thus emotivists => more stable
28/04/2010 20:54 <tuturututu> like in: denial of negativity brings unstability??
28/04/2010 20:53 <labcoat> right, the emotivists acknowledge the negative, serious state more easily
28/04/2010 20:53 <tuturututu> or rather: emotional stability (if there is any significant difference)
28/04/2010 20:53 <labcoat> Merry = more like wishes, intentions than emotional state
28/04/2010 20:52 <tuturututu> Constructivism = the opposite
28/04/2010 20:52 <tuturututu> Talanov says: Emotivism = mental stability
28/04/2010 20:52 <labcoat> = constructivism
28/04/2010 20:52 <labcoat> the person's emotional state can't be helped, I have to practically do things
28/04/2010 20:52 <labcoat> = emotivism
28/04/2010 20:51 <labcoat> the serious conditions can't be helped, one can only cheer people up
28/04/2010 20:50 <labcoat> yeah i figured that out
28/04/2010 20:50 <tuturututu> edited for emotivists!!!
28/04/2010 20:49 <labcoat> Limiting and Serious both means "serious" so they create an extreme of seriousness
28/04/2010 20:48 <labcoat> weird, i expected the opposite. Emotivists seem like the guys who take merry more seriously
28/04/2010 20:47 <tuturututu> Emotivists - Strong Serious Limiting/ Strong Merry Empowering
28/04/2010 20:47 <labcoat> somewhere in Articles
28/04/2010 20:47 <tuturututu> Constructivists - Strong Merry Limiting/ Strong Serious Empowering
28/04/2010 20:47 <April> sorry to interupt, but do either of you know of a table that lists all of the types and these dichotomies? i'm a hopeless beginner.
28/04/2010 20:44 <labcoat> Strong Serious Limiting/ Strong Serious Empowering
28/04/2010 20:44 <labcoat> Strong Merry Limiting/ Strong Serious Empowering
28/04/2010 20:43 <tuturututu> OK, I'm gonna see what can be done with Emotivism/Constructivism
28/04/2010 20:41 <labcoat> Empowering = in a state of flux
28/04/2010 20:41 <labcoat> yes, worst case scenario intuition = Ni
28/04/2010 20:41 <tuturututu> "strategicals feel they need to keep working at survival; that it is a constant movement" - this seems to be in accord with Talanov when he says that Strategists' worst case scenario intuition is, more or less, always at work
28/04/2010 20:40 <labcoat> how important is the notion of a home to the person
28/04/2010 20:40 <labcoat> as in, does the person have a designated home or not
28/04/2010 20:39 <labcoat> except when in the safe haven
28/04/2010 20:39 <labcoat> strategicals feel they need to keep working at survival; that it is a constant movement
28/04/2010 20:39 <labcoat> tacticals feel safe in more places
28/04/2010 20:38 <tuturututu> that might be problematic
28/04/2010 20:38 <labcoat> tactical: multiple safe havens, singular adventure
28/04/2010 20:37 <labcoat> Strategic: singular "safe haven", multiplar forays
28/04/2010 20:37 <tuturututu> however the strong judicios function might be valued or not

__________________
INTj
SOCIONICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Trevor

little correction: it should have been Farsighteds instead of Strategicals, thus making this comment of mine completely wrong and irrelevant

__________________
aser luada, Sef