Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 142

Thread: Alpha Philosophy & Religion

  1. #81

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    The difference between your understanding of Socionics and many other's, Phaedrus, is what you view as essential.
    It doesn't matter what any one of us views as essential as long as we agree on the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    I do not believe that types are relegated to the little boxes of descriptions written up by others.
    Who does? What you seem to suggest here is a strong indication that no matter how many times I have tried to explain this, people misinterpret it anyway. Types are not the same thing as descriptions of types. Types are biological entities, descriptions are abstract entities. And types existed exactly as they are now long before Socionics was invented.

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    It is the intent that defines them, their mental content that makes them as such.
    Yes, if "intent" is understood in ulitimately neuro-biological terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Such is why I say that functions are essential. They are the intent, the content of their minds that makes them the types that they are.
    No, no, no. The functions are theoretical constructs that are assumed to exist, and they are an attempt to explain (or rather describe with words (= put in a theoretical framework)) the content of the minds of the types.

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    This is why an INTj may act like an MBTI INTP and still be INTj.
    Of course he can. But to act like another type doesn't make you that type. An INTj is still an INTJ, and an INTp is still an INTP.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    You do not have to have the same MBTI and Socionics type, though it should matter if you are in the general area.
    Yes, you have to be the same type in both models. And even though Expat doesn't know his correct MBTT type, I know what it is. I know that Expat is an ENTJ, because I know that he is an ENTj. Or you could put it this way: Expat's MBTT type is just as certain as his type in Socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Okay, well MBTI results do not necessarily match, or must match, a given person's Socionic's results.
    Who has ever suggested that they would or should? I can't understand why people insist on confusing test results with correct types all the time. You present MBTT as if it would be some kind of kinder garten theory, where you trust the result of some test blindly. Both theories are exactly the same in this respect; your test result is only a strong indication of your correct type, not the final verdict. But of course you must get the same test result on every MBTI or Socionics test you take, if the result is going to reflect your true type.

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    But they are not the same. Jung's Ti and MBTT's Ti are two different phenomena that has very little in common. On the other hand it is of course possible that Jung's description of the outward behaviours of introverted thinkers is influenced by real life ILIs, if he mistyped many ILIs as introverted thinkers. But since Jung was an LII himself, he has not misdescribed the inner processes of introverted thinkers that much. He knew what introverted thinking is like from personal experience of it.
    Some would say he was wrong about that...
    Maybe. But the guy you are quoting agrees with me and Jung:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Beebe
    For a very long time, I have believed that Jung's native type was introverted intuition, with extraverted thinking as his auxiliary, what the MBTI would code as INTJ. I can't see him as an introverted thinking type, with extraverted intuition (INTP).
    That's exactly my own view -- and Jung's too. Don't confuse MBTT with Socionics here. Jung was not an INTP, which means that he wasn't an ILI. But Jung was an INTJ, and therefore he was an LII. Where's the problem?

  4. #84
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    You do not have to have the same MBTI and Socionics type, though it should matter if you are in the general area.
    Yes, you have to be the same type in both models. And even though Expat doesn't know his correct MBTT type, I know what it is. I know that Expat is an ENTJ, because I know that he is an ENTj. Or you could put it this way: Expat's MBTT type is just as certain as his type in Socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Okay, well MBTI results do not necessarily match, or must match, a given person's Socionic's results.
    Who has ever suggested that they would or should? I can't understand why people insist on confusing test results with correct types all the time. You present MBTT as if it would be some kind of kinder garten theory, where you trust the result of some test blindly. Both theories are exactly the same in this respect; your test result is only a strong indication of your correct type, not the final verdict. But of course you must get the same test result on every MBTI or Socionics test you take, if the result is going to reflect your true type.
    I understand that, but you are insisting that INTP = INTp, which is not necessarily the case. They may be trying to explain the same thing or type of person, but that does not make them the same, because a true MBTT INTP may discover that his true Socionics type is INTj.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  5. #85
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Who does? What you seem to suggest here is a strong indication that no matter how many times I have tried to explain this, people misinterpret it anyway. Types are not the same thing as descriptions of types. Types are biological entities, descriptions are abstract entities. And types existed exactly as they are now long before Socionics was invented. "

    But whenever I go "a person can be INTj and INTP because INTP and INTp aren't the same exact thing," you reject my statement and subordinate all my judgements to the type descriptions you hold so fondly, which at times even contradict your opinion(but you somehow rationalize this away with the fact that one of the contradicting descriptions is somehow "mislead"[Gulenko]), and then go on to say that INTP cannot possibly INTj because the type descriptions don't align well enough, which is absurd.

    "Yes, if "intent" is understood in ulitimately neuro-biological terms. "

    Whatever, I hold intent as an idealistic term of the mind that I would say can be more easily understood in neuro-biological terms, but I suppose we're speaking of roughly the same thing.

    "No, no, no. The functions are theoretical constructs that are assumed to exist, and they are an attempt to explain (or rather describe with words (= put in a theoretical framework)) the content of the minds of the types. "

    I don't really see it that way. The functions are more real to me, the types of information more obvious, than the types themselves. While I don't believe the functions to be exact in describing the various aspects of information that they purport to, I do view them as pretty accurate estimates.

    "Of course he can. But to act like another type doesn't make you that type. An INTj is still an INTJ, and an INTp is still an INTP."

    So you admit this, and by admitting this you also admit that someone may read an INTP description, and mostly identify with that, read an INTj description, mostly identify with that, and be both. Think about it this way: assume each type description to have only five aspects for arithmetic simplicity. A certain person identifies with aspects 1, 2, and 3 with the INTP description, 1 and 2 with the INTp description, and 3,4 and 5 of the INTj description(he prefers INTP over INTJ). This would mean that he would be, at least at that moment, justified in saying that he's INTP and INTj. The correlation needn't be 1:1 with MBTI and Socionics. If you do not believe such a scenario is possible, then you're clearly deluded. Certainly the types traits interlap, but in the end one of them are apples and the others are oranges, both under the same set but possessing traits that differentiate them from each other just a bit.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "No, no, no. The functions are theoretical constructs that are assumed to exist, and they are an attempt to explain (or rather describe with words (= put in a theoretical framework)) the content of the minds of the types. "
    I not only disagree with this view, but I am confident it will not be vindicated by advances in psychobiology. I am quite certain that the entire universe can be framed in terms of the information aspects, and their roles in terms of the functions.

    The difference between your understanding of Socionics and many other's, Phaedrus, is what you view as essential. I do not believe that types are relegated to the little boxes of descriptions written up by others. The very opposite is true: types can permeate in very large degrees from the most common aspects of the type. An unintelligent NT is not going to be able to think as rationally as that particular temperament is often purported to---even though that will be their aim and hence their claim to fame as an NT type. It is the intent that defines them, their mental content that makes them as such.
    An unintelligent NT... recently I've begun hypothesizing the possibility that some people never learn to use their transcendental function both ways. In a INT type, for example, might have it's sample of , but without the opportunity to feed it's own selection of information. Very likely... a person who had that opportunity could subconsciously control the person who did not, because the one has power over the "heart" we call function 7, and the other just samples it for situation-relevant information.

    This may be relevant to psychopathology, the distinction between the sociopath who only seeks to bring those who come in contact with them down, and the psychopath who would make the entire world conform to their warped vision.

    I don't believe an "intelligence gradient" exists. Certainly we have seen no proof that one does. But there does seem to be a divide between those who lead, and those who follow. (Nietzche called this "will to power", and Jung also wrote about it, calling it the "call of vocation" or "the historic personality".) Actually, there have been some "social network studies" that suggest the more "extreme"idea makers are in control of the networks.

    Certainly those who lead need followers, or else there would be no one to follow their orders and make up for the leader's shortcomings. Perhaps the leader has a responsibility to seek the release of the potentials inside these people, who cannot realize their own worth without the leader's guidance.

  7. #87
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It does seem that invariably any thread about Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi essentially is more about Alpha vs. Gamma. Funny how that always seems to be the case. The original intent of this thread was about accumulating a list of religions and philosophies and associated people would primarily value Alpha functions (, , , ).
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  8. #88
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    "No, no, no. The functions are theoretical constructs that are assumed to exist, and they are an attempt to explain (or rather describe with words (= put in a theoretical framework)) the content of the minds of the types. "
    I not only disagree with this view, but I am confident it will not be vindicated by advances in psychobiology.
    I even wish that would become true, but for the moment it isn't.

    To clarify my position, which Phaedrus has muddled -- I have said that functions don't really exist, he immediately wanted to draw from that the conclusion that they are irrelevant.

    What I meant is that there is no proof - as yet, perhaps - that someone's preferential use of, say, over is "biological". That doesn't mean at all that they are not essential to socionics. If we are speaking of socionics , we are speaking of a model for which the intertype relationships are as important as the types, which is the very point of model A. So any socionics understanding of, say, as the dominant function of ISFjs and INFjs has to include the understanding that it's the function of least priority for ESTps and ENTps. That is what holds model A together.

    If you look at Jung's descriptions of his types, for instance, there is nothing in his Extraverted Sensing type description that would put off an INTj or INFj too much, or more to the point, attract an INTp or INFp: it's a description of a "sensorial fun seeking" person. There is also not much in the Introverted Intuitive type description that would attract an ESFp or ESTp. So, his descriptions - or at least lots of them - are already different from socionics's in a very fundamental way.

    It is of course possible - and, to those who don't really understand the above, desirable - to focus on typologies and type descriptions which are not held together by the intertype relationships. It is of course possible to call a type an "INTp" and say that that "INTp" is more importantly defined by some descriptions and not by its relations to ESFps, ESFjs, etc. Of course all of that is possible.

    What is NOT possible (unless you want to "worship Satan") is to pretend that a version of "INTp" which regards model A's functions and the type relationships as secondary is the same version as the socionics version.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Beebe
    For a very long time, I have believed that Jung's native type was introverted intuition, with extraverted thinking as his auxiliary, what the MBTI would code as INTJ. I can't see him as an introverted thinking type, with extraverted intuition (INTP).
    That's exactly my own view -- and Jung's too. Don't confuse MBTT with Socionics here. Jung was not an INTP, which means that he wasn't an ILI. But Jung was an INTJ, and therefore he was an LII. Where's the problem?
    Can you seriously not see what is wrong here?
    I can see what you probably think is the problem. But that is an illusion.

    It is an empirical fact that the attitudes and thinking processes of INTjs/LIIs can be more or less correctly described in ways like these:

    For INJs, patterns aren't 'out there' in the world, waiting to be discovered. They're part of us – the way we make sense of the riot of energy and information impinging on our systems. A disease syndrome is a useful construct, but that's all it is – an aggregate of observations attached to a label, telling us what to see and how to deal with it. (...)

    Where Extraverted Intuitives see many behavioral options, INJs acknowledge many conceptual standpoints. They experience no need to declare one inherently better than another. Indeed, these types have the disconcerting habit of solving a problem by shifting their perspective and defining the situation some other way. (...)

    For INJs, truth isn't about logic. Truth is a frame of reference, a way of organizing information, which serves one set of needs or another. (...)

    Introverted Intuition (Ni) is the attitude that whatever is manifest (apparent, observable, described) is only the tiniest fraction of the total reality and all of its potential, and it is manifest only because it serves a purpose – a purpose that it achieves by exploiting a certain way of interpreting or navigating by signs. Ni is attunement to what lurks in the shadow of that manifestation. What is that assumed way of interpreting or navigating? What could we see if we were free of it? (...)

    Introverted Intuition is the attitude of attunement to what cannot be said, by virtue of the structuring that "saying" requires. (...)

    For example: Why do we put North at the top of most maps? Because the mapmaking tradition began among northern-dwelling people, who considered people who lived further south to be less important. Putting North at the top of the map frames geography in a way that, perhaps unwittingly, conveys the belief that Europeans are better or more important than Africans. This can't be said by anything within the map; the very way that the map is structured and related to reality says it. (...)

    Introverted Intuition is an attitude of "seeing through" the distortion that any interpretation creates, to see the underlying reality. It's a left-brain attitude in that it's sign- and symbol-oriented: attempting to grasp the system of interpretation that makes any particular way of representing reality work, as a prerequisite for using that system. From a Ni ego-state, you want to understand the assumptions of a system of representation before you use the system, so that you can use it with true freedom--including the freedom to use the built-in interpretations in ways that violate those assumptions. (...)
    The quotes are from a text on the Internet discussing what Lenore Thomson's means by Introverted Intuition (Ni). As you can see, this has very little in common with how is described in Socionics, and INTps/ILIs do not think in the way described.

    The attitudes and thinking processes of INTps/ILIs are much more accurately described in this way:

    Introverted Thinking is a right-brain form of judgement that makes us aware of a situation's many variables. When we use it, we recognize our power, as individuals, to exploit some variables at the expense of others. (...)

    This kind of awareness is not only impersonal: it's graphic, immediate, and holistic. It prompts no predetermined categories of good and bad. Variables that have unusual or perverse potential are accorded the same consideration as variables that assure a socially appropriate outcome. (...)

    As a right-brain function, Introverted Thinking is not conceptual and linear [contra Extraverted Thinking]. It's body-based and holistic. It operates by way of visual, tactile, or spatial cues, inclining us to reason experientially rather than analytically. (...)

    Introverted Thinking (Ti) is the attitude that beneath the complexity of what is manifest (apparent, observed, experienced) there is an underlying unity: a source or essence that emerges and takes form in different ways depending on circumstances. What is manifest is seen as a manifestation of something. From a Ti standpoint, the way to respond to things is in a way that is faithful to that underlying cause or source and helps it emerge fully and complete, without interference from any notion of self. The way to understand that underlying essence is to learn to simultaneously see many relationships within what is manifest, to see every element in relation to every other element, the relationships being the "signature" of the underlying unity. This can only be experienced directly, not second-hand. (...)

    Introverted Thinking is a form of mental representation in which every input, every variable, every aspect of things is considered simultaneously and holistically to perceive causal, mathematical, and aesthetic order. What you know by Ti, you know with your hands, your eyes, your muscles, even a tingling sensation "downstairs" because you sense that everything fits. Every variable is fair game to vary, every combination of variables worthy of consideration; the only ultimate arbiter is how well the parts form a unified whole rather than a jumble.

    Orienting by Ti, you track causal harmony: you are part of the system, you do your part to fit in with that overall way that things make sense and harmonize. You get into "the flow" or "the zone". You need a gestalt sense of order to know what to do – a sense that you feel in your body, in your mind, in everything at once. "I get it." Without that, you are lost. (...)

    For example: You hear a Brahms piece that you've never heard before, and you're sure it's Brahms. How can you tell? You can't name a criterion, like the pitch of the notes, the number of notes, or some simply measurable criterion like that (see extraverted thinking). You know "all at once" because of the way in which the notes all relate to each other. You sense the overall pattern as an indivisible gestalt way in which the music makes sense.

    For example: You are composing a piece of music, and you sense that something "doesn't fit". A dominant seventh chord here just doesn't fit the style of the piece. You take it out and replace it with a peculiar series of ambiguous chords, bridging two sections of the piece in a way that leads to but doesn't give away what is to come. Ahh, now that's right. That's what the piece really wanted. It's not what "you" wanted, it's what the emerging causal harmony of the music wanted. "Your" only job is to create faithfully to that emerging harmony – to follow the groove.

    What is that groove? What distinguishes the harmonious whole from the jumble, or the almost-whole? This cannot be said, it can only be pointed to. It cannot be defined in advance of knowing it. It cannot be defined separately from the physical material that it potentially exists within. You can "say" it only by directing someone's attention to the parts and how they fit together. You acquire terms of discourse – a vocabulary of things to say – only through "conversation" with the material itself: interacting with it, letting it take shape. Once you've found the groove, you can explore it endlessly – the infinity of ways in which the underlying Idea of the Whole necessitates the arrangement of the parts, the infinity of different ways that the same Idea can be realized in different parts and different situations, and what that Idea is.

    In contrast to the "linear thinking" necessitated by extraverted thinking's representation in terms of verbally defined criteria, Ti takes in everything at once and converts it into a "way in which the whole fits together." You can't stop and explain each step as you go; there are no steps, only flow, only finding the groove and going with it. (...)

    Introverted Thinking leads you to relate whatever you are doing to some larger principles that you have identified. Hence, Ti is like having some kind of book in your head, which describes the inner workings of things. When interacting with reality, you are constantly writing and re-writing your book. To deal with anything, you have to be able to understand in terms of the observations in your book. Whenever you are dealing with any new system, you start writing a new chapter on it in order to attain complete understanding of it.

    This approach may seem very cumbersome from an extraverted standpoint. You don't really need to understand how a bicycle works in order to ride one. You don't have to actually understand a subject in school if you simply cram and memorize. You don't have to understand computers to check your email. Yet Ti leads you to desire complete understanding of whatever you are doing, instead of looking up the correct procedure, or asking your friends for help, or kicking it when it's not working. With Ti, you don't simply try to understand a system well enough to manipulate it. You try to become such an expert on how it works that you could write a book about it if you had to, even if your expertise is unusable or useless to everybody (sometimes even to yourself).

    Hence, Ti is a kind of high-bandwidth understanding, because it leads you to try to understand the entire causal, aesthetic, or logical mechanism of any system of interest. This kind of understanding takes much more time and effort to develop, but it is more flexible once attained, because it allows you to deal with aspects of reality that cannot be described through social norms or sets of discrete procedures. (...)
    So, if you want to use Socionics, you have to understand that they are only disagreeing on words. They disagree on what words to use to label a certain way of thinking, but they do not disagree on the nature of the thinking processes. They agree on what the types are like, and what it is like to think and see things from a certain type's perspective. And it doesn't matter much that the thinking processes described above might look like a mish mash from a Socionics functional perspective.

    Unless it is Socionics that is wrong about the functions, we can say that MBTT has put incorrect labels on the typical thinking processes of INTPs and INTJs, because Socionics is closer to Jung's descriptions of the functions. And besides that, the intertype relations wouldn't make sense if INTps/ILIs had Ti as leading function and INTjs/LIIs had Ni as leading function, because everyone agrees on what to call the leading functions of the extraverted types.

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    The author gives the impression that he started from the functions and not the type (and also that he was referring to Jung's own descriptions of the functions).
    There is no reference to Jung's own descriptions of the functions, but you are right that he/she is discussing the functions, not the types.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    If introverted intuition truly corresponds to in Socionics -- and if the author is indeed correct -- then there is no way that Jung is a Socionics INTj.
    Correct. But there is no way that "Introverted Intuition" or "Ni" in Lenore Thomson's sense of the word corresponds to in Socionics if we are talking about the leading functions of INjs and INFps. As I said, it is an empirical fact that correctly typed INTjs identify more with Thomson's "Ni", and that INTps identify more with Thomson's "Ti".

    In MBTT's (and Thomson's) framework "Ti" is non-linear and holistic, and Thomson thinks it is a right brain function. That is totally different from Socionics, where is systematic, linear, and probably a left brain function. If MBTT and Thomson are right about the things they say about the functions, then Socionics is logically inconsistent and should be abandoned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    I am not going to get into an argument about Jung's type, but surely you see why this doesn't help your argument?
    Which argument? I am right about this, and the reason I mentioned it is because Luke has an incorrect understanding of the functions based on the erroneous MBTT model.

  11. #91

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    The author referred to what Jung had said about his own type, and hopefully they are consistent enough to also be referring to his definitions of intuition.
    They are definitely not consistent enough. Everything they say about the functions is seen from an MBTT perspective, where INTP is supposed to have Ti as leading function, and they falsely assume that Ti in MBTT's sense is the same function as Jung's introverted thinking. But they are wrong about that. And they can't see Jung as INTP because he is more similar to an INTJ, and an INTJ is assumed to have Ni as leading function, but, as a matter of fact, an INTJ does not have Ni as leading function, because Ni is (or should be) another label for , which is not the leading function of INTJs. The leading function of every living INTJ is .

  12. #92
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    The author referred to what Jung had said about his own type, and hopefully they are consistent enough to also be referring to his definitions of intuition.
    They are definitely not consistent enough. Everything they say about the functions is seen from an MBTT perspective, where INTP is supposed to have Ti as leading function, and they falsely assume that Ti in MBTT's sense is the same function as Jung's introverted thinking. But they are wrong about that. And they can't see Jung as INTP because he is more similar to an INTJ, and an INTJ is assumed to have Ni as leading function, but, as a matter of fact, an INTJ does not have Ni as leading function, because Ni is (or should be) another label for , which is not the leading function of INTJs. The leading function of every living INTJ is .
    No, I'm pretty sure Beebe gives precedence to Jung over Myers. He just makes the J/P (un?)switch as a matter of course when reading Jung, so his MBTI-code definitions are actually closer to socionics definitions with P-static and J-dynamic.

    Now that I re-read Jung's description of Ti, it makes more sense. What threw me off is that he plays up the subjective nature of introversion quite a bit. I prefer Augusta's description of fields versus bodies, but I don't think there's a material difference (i.e. that closely examined individual would differ from one typology to the other).

    What is potentially confusing is that the description of a subjective mental processing style is something any introvert could relate to, so an NiTe could easily find themself considering Ti. But ultimately it should be possible to determine that intuition is the stronger element rather than thinking.

    Intuition deals with connections of a nature that aren't in themself "logical", i.e. they don't follow a set progression. Ne feels constrained to definite objects when doing so, whereas Ni gravitates more to doing this with the subtler aspects of reality. Rather than needing a logical explanation for everything, the Ni sees the fact of a connection as significant in and of itself. This gives them the flexibility to be a dynamic type, and their famous capacity for insight into the future.

    Thinking is more oriented towards connections that have a verifiable element of causality. Even though Ti isn't as definite on specific issues as Te, it is deeply concerned with verifying that the connections are indeed causative in the hypothesized way. It is not satisfied to know what the future holds, but must investigate the whys and hows of events being caused by other events. This is what gives them the stability of a static type, and their ability to get to the bottom of difficult theoretical issues.

  13. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyone who wants to understand Jung's typology should get The Portable Jung. The paperback version is inexpensive and the insight into typology it grants is invaluable. Jung didn't just stop with Psychological Types; he continued to refine his understanding even in his final works. Nietzsche's Zarathustra also contains references regarding type. (although specific to Nietzsche)

  14. #94
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Hence, Ti is a kind of high-bandwidth understanding, because it leads you to try to understand the entire causal, aesthetic, or logical mechanism of any system of interest. This kind of understanding takes much more time and effort to develop, but it is more flexible once attained, because it allows you to deal with aspects of reality that cannot be described through social norms or sets of discrete procedures. (...)
    So, if you want to use Socionics, you have to understand that they are only disagreeing on words. They disagree on what words to use to label a certain way of thinking, but they do not disagree on the nature of the thinking processes. They agree on what the types are like, and what it is like to think and see things from a certain type's perspective. And it doesn't matter much that the thinking processes described above might look like a mish mash from a Socionics functional perspective.

    Unless it is Socionics that is wrong about the functions, we can say that MBTT has put incorrect labels on the typical thinking processes of INTPs and INTJs, because Socionics is closer to Jung's descriptions of the functions. And besides that, the intertype relations wouldn't make sense if INTps/ILIs had Ti as leading function and INTjs/LIIs had Ni as leading function, because everyone agrees on what to call the leading functions of the extraverted types.
    I relate well to both this last paragraph you quoted and Jung's description of Ti, although Jung's is confusing initially due to the obtuse (which I take to be internal, i.e. Ni) nature of some of his jargon. It also correlates well as "external statics of fields" to my mind, so I don't see reason to doubt I'm a Socionics Ti as well.

    Remember that your source is a wiki, and is the readers' tenative interpretations of her statements. There's likely to be a few mistyped individuals in there mixing it up.

    I find it interesting that Statics are right-brained, and Dynamics are left-brained according to her theory.

  15. #95

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    I relate well to both this last paragraph you quoted and Jung's description of Ti
    Do you mean that you relate better to "Ti" in Thomson's sense than to "Ni"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    I find it interesting that Statics are right-brained, and Dynamics are left-brained according to her theory.
    No, they are not. In her framework (and in MBTT) J types are Statics and P types are Dynamics. J is left brain, P is right brain.

    Read this: http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...ispheric_Clash

  16. #96
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    I relate well to both this last paragraph you quoted and Jung's description of Ti
    Do you mean that you relate better to "Ti" in Thomson's sense than to "Ni"?
    Yes, definitely. Along with Jung's, Augusta's, Wikisocion's, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    I find it interesting that Statics are right-brained, and Dynamics are left-brained according to her theory.
    No, they are not. In her framework (and in MBTT) J types are Statics and P types are Dynamics. J is left brain, P is right brain.

    Read this: http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...ispheric_Clash
    Do you realise your interpretation would have a Socionics EP be EJ in Thomson's MBTT?

    Read up on how the information aspects are described by Augusta. Note that Je/Pi = dynamic in an information aspect. Perhaps the reason for the difference in perception is that Augusta was talking more about the information itself, rather than the people doing the observing.

    I'm starting to think we're quasi-identical after all. Your method of processing fields of information could really be more intuitive... it seems to gloss over certain things that I wouldn't miss easily. Perhaps what I was actually noticing before was the shared Negativist stance that INTx are supposed to have.

  17. #97

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    Do you realise your interpretation would have a Socionics EP be EJ in Thomson's MBTT?
    Yes, I take back my statement about Thomson's statics/dynamics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    I'm starting to think we're quasi-identical after all. Your method of processing fields of information could really be more intuitive... it seems to gloss over certain things that I wouldn't miss easily.
    Maybe. But there are many interesting aspects of this. For example, why do you say that you are an MBTT INTP? Do you realize that for example Stratiyevskaya's LII description is much more similar to MBTT INTJ descriptions than to MBTT INTP descriptions, whereas the opposite is true of her ILI descriptions? How can you call yourself a P type in MBTT if you think that you are a rational type in Socionics? Do you realize that the behavioural differences between J and P types are identical in Socionics and MBTT?

  18. #98

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And Luke, how can you identify more with Thomson's Ti description when labcoat identifies more with her Ni description, if you are both INTjs? At least one of you must be mistyped.

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    Ever since I've read Thompson's description of her "introverted intuition" (in her model the INTJ's main function) I have been wondering to what extend it might be possible and perhaps even desirable to reformulate socionics' function model to fit that of the MBTI. Her description of the thought process is accurate to the point of intimidating.
    I am positive that I clearly identify much more with her Ti description, which has a lot of in it. All the things about harmony, wholeness, fitting pieces of the puzzle together etc. are aspects of in a socionic perspective. Contrast that with Thomson's Ni description, which in essence is a Subjectivist's perspective in Reinin's framework.

  19. #99
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We've been over this, haven't we, Phaedrus? Anything I say about identifying with a description is not really reliable. I can make myself believe anything with ease.

    I think much of what the exegesis writes about Ni is true for just about every critical thinker. What is the alternative to 'being aware of the context of what you perceive'; is it that you accept verdicts and statements uncritically and without considering their origin? What kind of person does that?

    Definitely some passages in the Ti description that ring a bell with me, too. These seem plenty applicable to NT'dom in general to me:

    Orienting by Ti, you track causal harmony: you are part of the system, you do your part to fit in with that overall way that things make sense and harmonize. You get into "the flow" or "the zone". You need a gestalt sense of order to know what to do – a sense that you feel in your body, in your mind, in everything at once. "I get it." Without that, you are lost. (...)

    For example: You hear a Brahms piece that you've never heard before, and you're sure it's Brahms. How can you tell? You can't name a criterion, like the pitch of the notes, the number of notes, or some simply measurable criterion like that (see extraverted thinking). You know "all at once" because of the way in which the notes all relate to each other. You sense the overall pattern as an indivisible gestalt way in which the music makes sense.

    For example: You are composing a piece of music, and you sense that something "doesn't fit". A dominant seventh chord here just doesn't fit the style of the piece. You take it out and replace it with a peculiar series of ambiguous chords, bridging two sections of the piece in a way that leads to but doesn't give away what is to come. Ahh, now that's right. That's what the piece really wanted. It's not what "you" wanted, it's what the emerging causal harmony of the music wanted. "Your" only job is to create faithfully to that emerging harmony – to follow the groove.
    Introverted Thinking leads you to relate whatever you are doing to some larger principles that you have identified. Hence, Ti is like having some kind of book in your head, which describes the inner workings of things. When interacting with reality, you are constantly writing and re-writing your book. To deal with anything, you have to be able to understand in terms of the observations in your book. Whenever you are dealing with any new system, you start writing a new chapter on it in order to attain complete understanding of it.
    I've heard the typical socionics INTj mindset being described in the above way. Doesn't seem that dubious either.

    This approach may seem very cumbersome from an extraverted standpoint. You don't really need to understand how a bicycle works in order to ride one. You don't have to actually understand a subject in school if you simply cram and memorize. You don't have to understand computers to check your email. Yet Ti leads you to desire complete understanding of whatever you are doing, instead of looking up the correct procedure, or asking your friends for help, or kicking it when it's not working. With Ti, you don't simply try to understand a system well enough to manipulate it. You try to become such an expert on how it works that you could write a book about it if you had to, even if your expertise is unusable or useless to everybody (sometimes even to yourself).
    Now wait, which of the NT types just crams and memorizes..? Does ANYONE identify with that? I doubt it.

    Hence, Ti is a kind of high-bandwidth understanding, because it leads you to try to understand the entire causal, aesthetic, or logical mechanism of any system of interest. This kind of understanding takes much more time and effort to develop, but it is more flexible once attained, because it allows you to deal with aspects of reality that cannot be described through social norms or sets of discrete procedures. (...)
    Compliments just become more and more flattering when the ambiguity of the language raises, don't they?

  20. #100

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here is a passage that is very , a passage that an INTj should not identify with.

    In contrast to the "linear thinking" necessitated by extraverted thinking's representation in terms of verbally defined criteria, Ti takes in everything at once and converts it into a "way in which the whole fits together." You can't stop and explain each step as you go; there are no steps, only flow, only finding the groove and going with it. (...)
    And the question remains -- which one of you two (labcoat or Luke) is an INTj and which one is not an INTj (but perhaps INTp).

    There is a fundamental difference between LIIs and ILIs that is always mentioned -- directly or indirectly -- in Socionics, MBTT's and Keirsey's type descriptions, and that is the difference between the ILI's objectivist perspective and the LII's subjectivist perspective.

    An ILI tries to understand the outer world, he seeks objective knowledge and objective truth ( ), and he tries to fit all the pieces together into a harmonious whole ( ).

    An LII is skeptical of the idea that an objective, mind-independent (or language-independent, or framework-independent) world can exist as a structure in itself, he does not seek objective knowledge, but instead he wants to see to it that his subjective ideas are realized in a systematic way ( ). An LII's main focus is not on getting objective knowledge, it is not directed outwards but inwards, the LII seeks meaning not knowledge.

    In contrast to the ILI, the LII is not primarily an observer of the world, he is a person who wants to change the world, to shape it according to his ideas of what it should be like. He is, in a sense, the creator of the world, since his perspective is bottom-up, subjectivist. Such a subjectivist perspective is clearly expressed in the works of Immanuel Kant.

  21. #101
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Here is a passage that is very , a passage that an INTj should not identify with.

    In contrast to the "linear thinking" necessitated by extraverted thinking's representation in terms of verbally defined criteria, Ti takes in everything at once and converts it into a "way in which the whole fits together." You can't stop and explain each step as you go; there are no steps, only flow, only finding the groove and going with it. (...)
    And the question remains -- which one of you two (labcoat or Luke) is an INTj and which one is not an INTj (but perhaps INTp).
    This isn't un-Ti, or un-Ni. It is a vague description of an introverted trait. As a contrast to Te (which it is explicitly marked as), it seems like a valid definition of Ti.

    There is a fundamental difference between LIIs and ILIs that is always mentioned -- directly or indirectly -- in Socionics, MBTT's and Keirsey's type descriptions, and that is the difference between the ILI's objectivist perspective and the LII's subjectivist perspective.

    An ILI tries to understand the outer world, he seeks objective knowledge and objective truth ( ), and he tries to fit all the pieces together into a harmonious whole ( ).
    An ILI tries to understand an inner and unknowable dynamic Truth field by investigating various dynamic bodies in the outer world . He's trying constantly to pile up more new observations of internal fields, but making many decisions regarding external bodies along the way, churning and changing their environment, often taking leadership with their quick and creative decision-making skills.

    An LII is skeptical of the idea that an objective, mind-independent (or language-independent, or framework-independent) world can exist as a structure in itself, he does not seek objective knowledge, but instead he wants to see to it that his subjective ideas are realized in a systematic way ( ). An LII's main focus is not on getting objective knowledge, it is not directed outwards but inwards, the LII seeks meaning not knowledge.

    In contrast to the ILI, the LII is not primarily an observer of the world, he is a person who wants to change the world, to shape it according to his ideas of what it should be like. He is, in a sense, the creator of the world, since his perspective is bottom-up, subjectivist. Such a subjectivist perspective is clearly expressed in the works of Immanuel Kant.
    I totally disagree with this perspective. A pure subjectivist is as much a one-dimensional lunatic as a pure objectivist. ILI and LII both have a primary focus on the subjective -- all introtims do. But both have balancing traits that keep them grounded in the real world, provided they are healthy and mentally balanced.

    I don't relate very well to your descriptions of "mind-independant" or "language-independant" as something a Ti is skeptical of. Framework-independant is perhaps another matter, as the existing universe seems to imply an objective mathematical and physical framework, but I doubt Ti is alone in doubting the lack of this. I can see how the field-interactions of the universe could be *called* a mind or a language, but that's a rather stretched analogy to anything science is aware of at present. Given a compelling reason to do so, I might make such an argument, or for entertainment / mental exercise purposes I could allude to it, but it would not come very naturally as a serious position. Therefore, probably, this an Ni attitude, and as such falls under my 8th trait.

  22. #102

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Here is a passage that is very , a passage that an INTj should not identify with.

    In contrast to the "linear thinking" necessitated by extraverted thinking's representation in terms of verbally defined criteria, Ti takes in everything at once and converts it into a "way in which the whole fits together." You can't stop and explain each step as you go; there are no steps, only flow, only finding the groove and going with it. (...)
    And the question remains -- which one of you two (labcoat or Luke) is an INTj and which one is not an INTj (but perhaps INTp).
    This isn't un-Ti, or un-Ni. It is a vague description of an introverted trait. As a contrast to Te (which it is explicitly marked as), it seems like a valid definition of Ti.
    Only because you think you are an INTj. But it seems more and more likely that you are not. The description above is clearly not a description of , but it is a description of "Ti" in MBTT. There is no "flow" or "can't stop and explain each step as you go" in . And it is not , and it is not un- to insist on verbally defined criteria. The only reason they state it as above (which is clearly wrong in Socionics) is to make it fit the MBTT types, and in MBTT an INTP is defined as having TiNe and an INTJ as having NiTe. But what they attribute to Te in INTJs is attributed to in INTjs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    An ILI tries to understand an inner and unknowable dynamic Truth field by investigating various dynamic bodies in the outer world . He's trying constantly to pile up more new observations of internal fields, but making many decisions regarding external bodies along the way, churning and changing their environment, often taking leadership with their quick and creative decision-making skills.
    There are at least two very interesting aspects of what you say here.

    The first is that you don't sound like an ILI here. A typical ILI would probably phrase it differently. Your style of writing seems more LII in this particular passage.

    The second aspect is that the phrase "churning and changing their environment, often taking leadership with their quick and creative decision-making skills" is totally incorrect as a description of an ILI's typical behaviour, and that will become obvious to you if you read some socionic type descriptions of ILIs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    An LII is skeptical of the idea that an objective, mind-independent (or language-independent, or framework-independent) world can exist as a structure in itself, he does not seek objective knowledge, but instead he wants to see to it that his subjective ideas are realized in a systematic way ( ). An LII's main focus is not on getting objective knowledge, it is not directed outwards but inwards, the LII seeks meaning not knowledge.

    In contrast to the ILI, the LII is not primarily an observer of the world, he is a person who wants to change the world, to shape it according to his ideas of what it should be like. He is, in a sense, the creator of the world, since his perspective is bottom-up, subjectivist. Such a subjectivist perspective is clearly expressed in the works of Immanuel Kant.
    I totally disagree with this perspective.
    Then you disagree with Socionics's type descriptions and the Reinin dichotomies. And if you totally disagree with such a perspective you are most likely not the same type as Kant.

  23. #103
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Here is a passage that is very , a passage that an INTj should not identify with.

    In contrast to the "linear thinking" necessitated by extraverted thinking's representation in terms of verbally defined criteria, Ti takes in everything at once and converts it into a "way in which the whole fits together." You can't stop and explain each step as you go; there are no steps, only flow, only finding the groove and going with it. (...)
    And the question remains -- which one of you two (labcoat or Luke) is an INTj and which one is not an INTj (but perhaps INTp).
    This isn't un-Ti, or un-Ni. It is a vague description of an introverted trait. As a contrast to Te (which it is explicitly marked as), it seems like a valid definition of Ti.
    Only because you think you are an INTj. But it seems more and more likely that you are not. The description above is clearly not a description of , but it is a description of "Ti" in MBTT. There is no "flow" or "can't stop and explain each step as you go" in . And it is not , and it is not un- to insist on verbally defined criteria. The only reason they state it as above (which is clearly wrong in Socionics) is to make it fit the MBTT types, and in MBTT an INTP is defined as having TiNe and an INTJ as having NiTe. But what they attribute to Te in INTJs is attributed to in INTjs.
    You seem quick to make claims here. I'm inclined to think my own definitions are more in line with socionics on a theoretical level than yours.
    Quote Originally Posted by [url=http://socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml
    Augusta[/url]] White (introverted) logic
    We shall call 'logical' those feelings that arise in the process of comparing one object to another on the basis of any objective parameter — for example, a feeling of distance, weight, volume, worth, strength, quality, etc. These are feelings of objective evaluation that in certain situations help activate or passivate the person experiencing them. Such an individual perceives information from without as a sense of objects' proper or improper correlation/proportion, a sense of balance or imbalance between them, or an awareness or unawareness of the advantages of one object over another. This also includes all feelings that results from knowing or not knowing objects and phenomena — curiosity, respect, fear, and a sense of the logicalness or illogicalness of things, as well as a sense of one's own power or powerlessness before different objects.
    ...

    Such an individual is able to set his logic — or his knowledge of objectifiable reality, patterns, laws, and correlations of the objective world — in opposition to others' knowledge. He has the ability to mould and perfect not only his own knowledge of objectifiable reality, but also that of other people. This creates a feeling of power when clashing with other people's logic or lack thereof.
    This ought to be pretty close to definitive Socionics. And it seems to fit pretty well with my conception of Ti. I can easily come up with ways in which I can say "you're wrong" to someone based purely on a lack of logical consistency. However I may not choose to do so directly, if I think the point they're trying to make is good because it can be validated via a different logical path. I tend to think Te is more single-minded than this, focusing on the immediate statement and whether it is objectively right or wrong, rather than the overall path and whether it leads to a plausible-seeming result.

    What doesn't fit well with my conception of the LII/ILI distinction is the stereotype many have of a radical revolutionary who loves politics versus a quietly observing critic who never gets involved. I can see how either type could wind up on either side of the fence, but their reason for doing so would tend be markedly different.

    ILI doesn't regard rules and social norms as something to take to heart. Rather, they are an external phenomenon to be sorted out and challenged. This has several aspects. For one they attempt to show respect to Si (taking care of the place, fitting to the subtler expectations of others), but in the long term are unable to maintain it. They tend to create a form of chaos where an SXE can more easily step in and control, which translates to providing a less subtle set of external expectations they can meet in a more explicit manner. Another thing is their attitude towards Fe and Fi. They are quick to percieve criticism in Fe information, feeling a nearly literal pain from it. Instead they tend to quietly build up a set of values which they feel are morally inviolable, and have an agenda where they try to make others toe the line, without making it obvious what they are doing. The XEE can thus draw attention from them with their creative trait.

    LII has an attitude of actually wanting to fit social norms, but not wanting to be too obvious about it. They feel pain when coerced by the non-subtle expectations of those who use Se, and can be aroused to stubborn noncompliance. However this may be subtle in nature, e.g. purposely doing a bad job where one does not feel a job was needed to be done in the first place. They are more likely to respond well to Fe criticisms, seeing them as an opportunity to reevaluate and change themselves for the better. The subtle ethical code of Fi on the other hand seems like a mysterious and complex entity they don't want to tick off, and thus attempt a surface compliance which inevitably fails to come through.

    Either type will attempt to innovate and combat imbalances in power. ILI is opposed to the moral corruption of higher-ups, and will fight generally within the law, but will more likely do so in a chaotic and forceful way that can draw attention to them and raise eyebrows. LII will fight oppression when the law is overly powerful and unfairly treats people. They won't generally try to force anyone to come to their side, but will make it seem more appealing. ILI is more likely to attempt to compel others on the basis that goodness is on their side, even if their side is seemingly unpopular.

    Even if you don't agree with the way I've presented each type, please try and see the symmetry here. Both are revolutionary, both are critics, both are analysts, both are observers. But really not of the same things for the same reasons. They have superficial similarities and fit the same social roles in many ways, but there are those subtle differences if you know what to look for. I think this mistake is made in describing many quasi-identical types -- taking a very general social role that one can fit and implying that the other could not fit it just as well.

  24. #104

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    ILI doesn't regard rules and social norms as something to take to heart. Rather, they are an external phenomenon to be sorted out and challenged. This has several aspects. For one they attempt to show respect to Si (taking care of the place, fitting to the subtler expectations of others), but in the long term are unable to maintain it. They tend to create a form of chaos where an SXE can more easily step in and control, which translates to providing a less subtle set of external expectations they can meet in a more explicit manner. Another thing is their attitude towards Fe and Fi. They are quick to percieve criticism in Fe information, feeling a nearly literal pain from it. Instead they tend to quietly build up a set of values which they feel are morally inviolable, and have an agenda where they try to make others toe the line, without making it obvious what they are doing. The XEE can thus draw attention from them with their creative trait.

    LII has an attitude of actually wanting to fit social norms, but not wanting to be too obvious about it. They feel pain when coerced by the non-subtle expectations of those who use Se, and can be aroused to stubborn noncompliance. However this may be subtle in nature, e.g. purposely doing a bad job where one does not feel a job was needed to be done in the first place. They are more likely to respond well to Fe criticisms, seeing them as an opportunity to reevaluate and change themselves for the better. The subtle ethical code of Fi on the other hand seems like a mysterious and complex entity they don't want to tick off, and thus attempt a surface compliance which inevitably fails to come through.

    Either type will attempt to innovate and combat imbalances in power. ILI is opposed to the moral corruption of higher-ups, and will fight generally within the law, but will more likely do so in a chaotic and forceful way that can draw attention to them and raise eyebrows. LII will fight oppression when the law is overly powerful and unfairly treats people. They won't generally try to force anyone to come to their side, but will make it seem more appealing. ILI is more likely to attempt to compel others on the basis that goodness is on their side, even if their side is seemingly unpopular.

    Even if you don't agree with the way I've presented each type, please try and see the symmetry here. Both are revolutionary, both are critics, both are analysts, both are observers. But really not of the same things for the same reasons. They have superficial similarities and fit the same social roles in many ways, but there are those subtle differences if you know what to look for. I think this mistake is made in describing many quasi-identical types -- taking a very general social role that one can fit and implying that the other could not fit it just as well.
    Actually, I very much agree with how you have presented the LII and the ILI here. This is one of the best descriptions I have seen of the subtle differences between those two types, and probably the best I have seen coming from an INTj (which is the type I now believe you are). People should read it and learn from it.

    We still have the general problem with the functions descriptions, though. Don't you agree that there seems to be a special problem in regards to LIIs and ILIs and their identification with ? I really think this is a problem, because many ILIs identify with how is usually described in Socionics, and the descriptions of are often confusing, as have been apparent in many discussions on the matter. Therefore I try to focus on those aspects of that an ILI should not identify with -- those aspects that are unique to LIIs and don't apply to ILIs. I try to focus on the differences and stress them as much as possible. Those aspects are usually mentioned in the type descriptions, but they are not always very clearly expressed or explained, so many ILIs tend to think that they are LIIs, because they don't notice the differences.

    The problem is that you don't agree with the aspects I point to as fundamental differences between an LII's perspective and an ILI's perspective. Maybe the explanation for this phenomenon is that we are Quasi-Identicals. I and other ILIs have been very dissatisfied with how ILIs are presented by LIIs in Socionics type descriptions. From my perspective it seems as though we are misleadingly described in a way that is correct in a sense, but where the focus is wrong or where some very important aspects are not mentioned or caricatured to present us in a negative way. The problem is probably mutual, since I also have a tendency to present LIIs in a negative way.

    What should be done about it I don't know. But your long description of the differences above is a good start. I very much welcome more of such descriptions that focus on the differences instead of the many similarities, and where the differences are explained in a way that we both can agree upon. (I also think that LIIs and ILIs themselves are most often the best qualified to determine whether such descriptions are correct or not. But what sometimes happens is that people, who are not one of those two types themselves or falsely think that they are the other type of those two, step in and say that ILIs are not like that, or LIIs are not like that. And that usually results in the frustrating phenomenon that the debate over the question "Who are the real LIIs, and who are the real ILIs?" never seem to end.

  25. #105
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Luke (and I guess Phaedrus too), would you mind posting that in the General topic discussion? I think that what you wrote should be looked at in more detail on the General forum. Great stuff.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  26. #106
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    On the contrary, what they are talking about has very little to do with socionics types.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  27. #107
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    On the contrary, what they are talking about has very little to do with socionics types.
    So how would you correct what Luke said?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  28. #108
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    On the contrary, what they are talking about has very little to do with socionics types.
    So how would you correct what Luke said?
    First by pointing out what it really means to have Fe or Fi in the super-id. But I'm not going to explain it here in detail. My views on that and other issues are in the wiki.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  29. #109
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    On the contrary, what they are talking about has very little to do with socionics types.
    So how would you correct what Luke said?
    First by pointing out what it really means to have Fe or Fi in the super-id. But I'm not going to explain it here in detail. My views on that and other issues are in the wiki.
    That works.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  30. #110
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,472
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee
    Hippism
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    By the way, David Hume is not Alpha. He is clearly Gamma.
    His constant pleasantry was the genuine effusion of good-nature and good-humour, tempered with delicacy and modesty, and without even the slightest tincture of malignity, so frequently the disagreeable source of what is called wit in other men. It never was the meaning of his raillery to mortify; and therefore, far from offending, it seldom failed to please and delight, even those who were the objects of it. To his friends, who were frequently the objects of it, there was not perhaps any one of all his great and amiable qualities, which contributed more to endear his conversation. And that gaiety of temper, so agreeable in society, but which is so often accompanied with frivolous and superficial qualities, was in him certainly attended with the most severe application, the most extensive learning, the greatest depth of thought, and a capacity in every respect the most comprehensive. Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit.
    --by his good friend Adam Smith. What quadra does that sound like to you?

  31. #111
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Don't you think that Smith's own type is relevant to that description?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  32. #112
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,472
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In that it shows why they got along, yes.

  33. #113
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Would you mind saying clearly what you think? That Smith was Gamma and Hume was Alpha? Is that it?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  34. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's a question: what is the information aspect corresponding to the "invisible hand"?

  35. #115
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Here's a question: what is the information aspect corresponding to the "invisible hand"?
    That "invisible hand" thing is one of the biggest misquotes in history.

    If you read what he actually wrote - which was far less sweeping than people tend to think - it was Ni + Te.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  36. #116
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    On the contrary, what they are talking about has very little to do with socionics types.
    So how would you correct what Luke said?
    First by pointing out what it really means to have Fe or Fi in the super-id. But I'm not going to explain it here in detail. My views on that and other issues are in the wiki.
    I asked my girlfriend whether I seemed to fit the wiki descriptions of Fe or Se as vulnerable. She said the Fe one fit better. So that would make me ILI. I'm gonna have to change my sig

  37. #117
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    On the contrary, what they are talking about has very little to do with socionics types.
    So how would you correct what Luke said?
    First by pointing out what it really means to have Fe or Fi in the super-id. But I'm not going to explain it here in detail. My views on that and other issues are in the wiki.
    I asked my girlfriend whether I seemed to fit the wiki descriptions of Fe or Se as vulnerable. She said the Fe one fit better. So that would make me ILI. I'm gonna have to change my sig
    It takes that little for you to change your type?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  38. #118
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,472
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Would you mind saying clearly what you think? That Smith was Gamma and Hume was Alpha? Is that it?
    That's an interesting possibility, but it's not what I was thinking. I haven't researched Smith nearly as much as Hume, but Hume seems clearly ENTp to me (and he is generally portrayed as such). Based on what I know (including their apparently good relationship), I figured that Smith was INTj, but his writing does seem very Te. The only Te quadra type that would be at all possible for Hume is ENFp, though I don't think it's likely.

  39. #119
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, I know more about Adam Smith than about David Hume, and to me Smith was very clearly a Te type. I know less about Hume, but also due to their friendship, I thought he was Te as well. However, I don't have as much information on him as I have on Smith.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  40. #120

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Both Smith and Hume were Te types. That is obvious by the style and content of their writings. And both of them have the typical externalist, objectivistic perspective.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •