Dual-type theory: Exertion and Ni

[tcaudilllg]

First off, I should defend my posting here as regards the topic of exertion.

Exertion is not necessarily Augustan socionics. However, Gulenko has begun studying it and there may be others who are studying it, also. In particular there seems to be discussions of a "informational-energic level" in recent Socionics Institute articles. I do not know what is meant by this because I have no access to the articles themselves (they are not linked), however the discussion seems to be highly and it is probable that an abstract parallel would exist to the formalized thoughts of Gulenko and myself. I think that exertion has a place in formal socionics discussion, not only because it is being discovered but because, it allows us to participate more effectively in what we are really here for: to learn more about ourselves and each other.

Having stated my position as regards this post, I continue on to the topic of my interest.

Given that and differ only as regards the matter of time, as each is a function of possibility, the same truths that hold for hold equally for as regards exertion. To wit:

Augusta
describes the internal statics of objects as their potential, equivalent to
the physical concept of potential energy owing to a state of position to act.
The question as to what potential is existant, then, is a matter of the
activity the apphrended object is capable of performing. The nature of this
activity, which we reckon as apphrehensible only by means of a corresponding
information element, is a question of the exerted element which serves
extroverted intuition.

Similarly, is the analysis of sequences of apprehended events. The question, as regards the topic of exertion, is "what events are being apprehended"? Similarly, as regards producing , we ask, "what is it that is being planned?" Although at first we would say "it could be anything", is that really the case?

The answer is no, of course not. And why it is not, is because we hold true to our own interpretations of a situation. Another person of the same type as ourselves may describe the situation by means of a different focus, one which we had never considered relevant to our situation. And why is that? The answer lies in the existence of the exerted type, for even after we are made aware of the alternative viewpoint we hold true to our own and try to scrutenize the situation even closer by our own means. We agree that the alien viewpoint is relevant to the situations, but even as we do that we argue that it is irrelevant to us. Instead we say, "let him deal with that aspect then, it is not my place." This dominance of focus is indicative of a heiarchy of outlooks not unlike a Model-A type.

For , a focus would be a sequence of conversations. A focus would be a series of points of view or feelings observed in the environment. A focus would be the observation of one's own internal feeling flow. A focus would be a progression of forces at work. A focus would be a pleasant cascade of sensations. A focus would be the observation of random sequences of occurence. A focus would be the observation of thought's evolution; and an focus an endless series of independent progressions.

[Jonathan]

For , a focus would be a sequence of conversations. A focus would be a series of points of view or feelings observed in the environment. A focus would be the observation of one's own internal feeling flow. A focus would be a progression of forces at work. A focus would be a pleasant cascade of sensations. A focus would be the observation of random sequences of occurence. A focus would be the observation of thought's evolution; and an focus an endless series of independent progressions.

So is the idea to look at each of the functions from the perspective of one accepting function, in a fashion sort of similar to model A, except that one's looking at what those functions look like when one "focuses" on them or somehow "acts" in those areas?

How would this list of each of those other functions appear from, say, a or perspective?

[krieger]

The answer is no, of course not. And why it is not, is because we hold true to our own interpretations of a situation. Another person of the same type as ourselves may describe the situation by means of a different focus, one which we had never considered relevant to our situation. And why is that? The answer lies in the existence of the exerted type, for even after we are made aware of the alternative viewpoint we hold true to our own and try to scrutenize the situation even closer by our own means. We agree that the alien viewpoint is relevant to the situations, but even as we do that we argue that it is irrelevant to us. Instead we say, "let him deal with that aspect then, it is not my place." This dominance of focus is indicative of a heiarchy of outlooks not unlike a Model-A type.

Sounds a bit like how I understand the mechanism.

my contribution:
All functions apprehend reality in terms of sequences. Even 'structural logic'. The difference between 'situation A lead into situation B' and 'part A connects to part B' is a cosmetic difference only (or rather, a difference in the mathematical specifics).

[tcaudilllg]

The answer is no, of course not. And why it is not, is because we hold true to our own interpretations of a situation. Another person of the same type as ourselves may describe the situation by means of a different focus, one which we had never considered relevant to our situation. And why is that? The answer lies in the existence of the exerted type, for even after we are made aware of the alternative viewpoint we hold true to our own and try to scrutenize the situation even closer by our own means. We agree that the alien viewpoint is relevant to the situations, but even as we do that we argue that it is irrelevant to us. Instead we say, "let him deal with that aspect then, it is not my place." This dominance of focus is indicative of a heiarchy of outlooks not unlike a Model-A type.

Sounds a bit like how I understand the mechanism.

my contribution:
All functions apprehend reality in terms of sequences. Even 'structural logic'. The difference between 'situation A lead into situation B' and 'part A connects to part B' is a cosmetic difference only (or rather, a difference in the mathematical specifics).

Yes, but those specifics are vital, because they explain the process by which B is produced. "IM element A doing C produces IM element B doing D."
(oh wait, we were talking about completely different things)

You could extended it into a movement between blocks. "IM element B doing D produces the range of IM element E doing F."

Consider the example of ILI with exertion LIE: evaluating elements of (dialogue, for example) over the course of a range of moments allows for the observation of a connecting principle between the seperate instances of dialogue, the nature of this principle being . What is observed as an evolution of sorts of ; for example, the observation of the conversation's gradient, how it specifically changed. Obviously this change would be best represented by a mathematical equation, because the connecting principle is universal. However, this progression ultimately has consequences for interrelationships and the perceptions they exert, because dialogue evolutions are, for all intents and purposes, the substance of relational evolution. Therefore the ILI is compelled by responsibility to "clean up" the unexpected consequences ( doing PoLR) which have been created the observation of their connecting principles by means of an appropriate role cultivating an image.


Edit: (On closer inspection, it seems labcoat and I were talking about completely different things.)

[tcaudilllg]

Let me put this in frank terms:
I want the INFps and INTps on this forum (niffweed excluded, in fact I would hope he ignores this post entirely) to explain to me what they intutively believe their exertion types to be. Provide examples: explain what kinds of information you, yourself, consider when approaching a problem. Do not count suggestions from others, only your preferred way of using to produce (in the case of INFps) or (in the case of :INTps). INFps: what is it exactly that produces the , and what is the nature of the dynamic you are producing? INTps: what kinds of occurances or events do your perceive are connected to each other, and what kinds of connections do you see? I am not seeking to reach a general conclusion regarding dominant experiences; I want individual testimonies and examples.

[ScarlettLux]

Let me put this in frank terms:
I want the INFps and INTps on this forum (niffweed excluded, in fact I would hope he ignores this post entirely) to explain to me what they intutively believe their exertion types to be. Provide examples: explain what kinds of information you, yourself, consider when approaching a problem. Do not count suggestions from others, only your preferred way of using to produce (in the case of INFps) or (in the case of :INTps). INFps: what is it exactly that produces the , and what is the nature of the dynamic you are producing? INTps: what kinds of occurances or events do your perceive are connected to each other, and what kinds of connections do you see? I am not seeking to reach a general conclusion regarding dominant experiences; I want individual testimonies and examples.

Okay, so after reading this, I *still* don't really quite understand the whole exertion thing. For me, I just now believe it to be something like this: The first type you are (for me, INFp?) is who you "truly" are deep inside. It's the natural self, the self you revert to when you are alone. This is probably 100% wrong, but I don't care. I just don't get it. Anyway. I think the second type seems to be how you "exert" yourself to other people - how you actually appear to others. Despite the fact that yes, they will percieve you to be the type you "truly" are, a lot of the times, they will describe you in terms of your exertion type? I intuitively believe mine to be ESFp. There are so many points of the ESFp descriptions I agree with, but the intertype relations, not at all. Well, I get along with other ESFps amazingly.. but that could just be Semi-duality as an INFp, right?

When approaching a problem.. um, I am not too sure how to explain this as you would like it. Using to produce .. I do believe I use in a lot of my life.. I seem to change my visions through and try to make them "forcefully" come true by demonstrating pressure on my surroundings.. being passionate ... shown through the .. I feel best when I let myself go .. give into sensation and "feel" .. it is the best thing ever.. I am not sure if this is related to anything. I like going crazy/wild.. I can act 100% ESFp a lot of the time when I am going out or something. It's basically.. hmm.. how should I put this. The crazy imaginings in my head.. the passion.. exuding itself and bleeding out into the real world. I really *do* start acting like I imagine... like I see myself in my mind's eye.. I start picturing scenes.. and act them out.. everything seems heightened.

[tcaudilllg]

The crazy imaginings in my head.. the passion.. exuding itself and bleeding out into the real world. I really *do* start acting like I imagine... like I see myself in my mind's eye.. I start picturing scenes.. and act them out.. everything seems heightened.

This is consistent with what an INTp-ESFp told me: she can remember things she has done so vividly, it's like she's doing them all over again.

I gather then, that you take action as a means of "molding" other's perceptions and feelings. The actions you take exert a kind of environmental pressure on objects by forcing them to respond internally to sequences of events. You try reproducing those event sequences which you have learned, as a means of producing a change in the object's viewpoint, specifically its "statics": you try to make them feel differently.

Actually, that's Gulenko's view on exertion. It's certainly a more "holistic" view; I try to atomize exertion myself, and transform it into a cycle of thoughts that builds on itself.

Okay, so after reading this, I *still* don't really quite understand the whole exertion thing.

Neither do I. I'm still researching the function pairings, and how they work together.

Edit: Gulenko's view: http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools , it's in the "levels of psyche" section, Dec 17 2006.

[tcaudilllg]

This is what I've got so far for the manifestations of Ni exerted. (copy/paste from the Wikisocion article) I had defined it as "cumulative progression", but I thinks that's too liberal-centric and I want a broader view of it.

Exerted Ni is the passing of time, as opposed to meta Ni which the perception of passing time. Like meta Ni, exerted Ni can be reckoned as happening relative to a single system, or relative to the set of all systems. The + form of ex-Ni is set of actions and their consequences relative to any observer. The observer acts against something, which in turn imparts its own force against something else, etc. This is the relativistic consideration of energy's path in space. The non-relative "absolute" consideration of the same would be the Newtonian world machine, where many independent physical reference frames continue alongside one another in time.

This is a very big job, describing all the ways this energy manifests, so I need your help in clarifying how different paths in time intersect with each other.

What I've got:

=== [[Introverted Intuition]] (procedural pathway) ===

The path of energy in time.

==== With Meta ====

Acceleration/deceleration; rates of increase and decrease.

==== With Meta ====

Behavioral range of an object; the range of a given domain.

==== With Meta ====

Intersection of paths and sequences; common destinies and outcomes.

==== With Meta ====

Expansion of structure; increased analytical depth; rise and fall of institutions

==== With Meta ====

Relationships between changing variables; maturation of relationships over time; rise and decline in trade; temporal response to work.

==== With Meta ====

Accentuating sensations; rising and falling sensory awareness; changes in the urgency of need; gradual changes in sensation.

==== With Meta ====

Evolution of consciousness; broadening consciousness; rising and falling popularity and enthusiasm.

==== With Meta ====

Evolution of feeling; accentuation of feeling; influence of attraction/ repulsion on choices made.

What I'd like to have: a division of each of these on lines of +/-, and additional examples of the energy at work.

[tcaudilllg]

Rather than use a concrete example of energy travelling from one body to another, let's refer instead, for purposes of greater clarity, to the abstact equivalent form of nodes on a network. We say that the passage of a traveler from one node to another is the passage of time, and that what the points on the path taken have in common with each other is the metabolism element which relates them.

[crazedrat]

for Se, I think it would be more like this:
the awareness of the integrity of the situation, and that it can be functioned in securely and coherently without encountering conflicting parts / obstacles; and how this changes over time in the name of furthering the integrity of the situation.
There is a close relationship between Se & Ni. They are opposites

[tcaudilllg]

for Se, I think it would be more like this:
the awareness of the integrity of the situation, and that it can be functioned in securely and coherently without encountering conflicting parts / obstacles; and how this changes over time in the name of furthering the integrity of the situation.
There is a close relationship between Se & Ni. They are opposites

That's half of it. (definitely progressivism's viewpoint thereof).

Here's what I've got so far:

-Ti:Ni = the common cause observed as the reason for the continued progression of the path from one node to the next; paths that have different continuation rationale may be considered distinct, and form the basis for division between + and - forms of ex-Ni.

Example: the reason for the transmission of light across a medium is due to the absorbtion of photons by the medium's constituent atoms, and the immediate release of such a photon if the atoms is already internally balanced. (this release corresponding to the transmission).

+Ti:Ni = the observer's reason for taking the path.

+Fi:Ni = the observer's motive for taking the path.

-Fi:Ni = the common polar/chemical basis which permits the work of the traversal to continue along the path

+Se:Ni = a physical quality that the observer is moving along the path. (it's mass, for example)

-Se:Ni = the physical qualities that are engaged in the transfer of energy between nodes. (for example, the velocity of the transfer).

+Fe:Ni = the meaning of the pulse that is being transferred between nodes.

-Fe:Ni = the common meaning that is implied by the success of the transfer system

+Te:Ni = the work done by the observer to traverse between nodes

-Te:Ni = the work done by the network to conduct the observer's movement from one node to the next

+Ne:Ni = the potential of the observer to move from one node to the next

-Ne:Ni = the network's capacity to be traversed

+Ni:Ni = the observer's experience of moving from one node to the next

-Ni:Ni = the process of moving energy across the network

Note: for purposes of the following observations, "stress" is defined as the degree to which systems interfere with each other, and the attendent sensory experience thereof by observers who are constituted by those systems.

+Si:Ni = the stress incurred by the observer in moving from one point on the network to another. (the functional relation of the observer to the nodes)

-Si:Ni = the stress incurred by the network from moving energy across it

[crazedrat]

for Se, I think it would be more like this:
the awareness of the integrity of the situation, and that it can be functioned in securely and coherently without encountering conflicting parts / obstacles; and how this changes over time in the name of furthering the integrity of the situation.
There is a close relationship between Se & Ni. They are opposites

"in the name of retaining the existing coherence of the situation" would be the other half of it

[tcaudilllg]

"in the name of retaining the existing coherence of the situation" would be the other half of it

That would be the conservative quadrant. There's also the problem of the mechanistic "space related" half. Joy is very aware of that part of it.

[tcaudilllg]

As I see it now, while the above statement is true, the real reason that strong Fe EM people are masters of "common sense" is that they try to avoid looking at the situation in complex terms. They are masters of simplicity, lacking for the strong detail-oriented focus of a strong Ti EM "engineering" type person. Often the Ti EM strong will read the situation as more complex and nuanced than it actually is, particularly in dealings with people, who are fundamentally easy to understand with sufficient background knowledge. For T EM type people, nothing is ever "simple".