First things First

[Transigent]

Okay, first comes the person, and then comes the type. There is no chicken and egg thing here. We were not all created with a "type" first, with the preceeding events obscuring this "original type", so that if we look deep enough we can find what we were originally "made" as. No, it goes biology first and formost. Your chemicals make you who you are, and the type is a general conception of what happens with people in general.

(In English: Types aren't "real". The only "real" thing is the abstract system or language by which we talk about type, and the differences come in how we figure this out and apply it in reality.)

People of a certain type are not exactly the same. Different processes may have created the same "type", who knows? One person may be an N type because of general lack of testosterone or something like that, where another person may be an N type because of over/under-connectiveness of synapses, or even both. One person may be N because of lack of S, or S because of lack of N.

One person may be a T-type because of total lack of the emotional center in the brain, where another person can be a T-type simply because they love to think and can't get enough of it.

These reasons are vast and varied, and Socionics ties all this together by creating mutually exclusive dichotomies by which we can categorize all these different ways that people arrive at the same general "typology". This is why there must be a seperation between things like what a "function" is in the abstract, and what people who "have" a certain function tend to "do", because who's to say that these different "paths" to the same type aren't different in important ways?

People wonder why VI is a part of type identification. Duh. Your psyche is determined by biology the same way your body is, and to say otherwise would just be silly! Obviously, you can have different interpretations based off of VI, but fundamentally, the information about what chemicals circulate in your body, hormones and junk, should be there to a certain extent. This is what VI is based on. It isn't magic.

There are some basic and important categorizations that have alot to do with "type", but it isn't like this is the only way we can categorize people. I could easily make a "gayness" dichotomy and add that on to it, and have Extroverted and Introverted "Gayness" (complete with VI, and we all know this is possible), but this is not what Socionics is, so it would be better left to another subject.

When these dichotomies are combined, "type" is created:

Objective/Subjective (E/I) - Objective is something that is more or less agreed upon, where subjective is more up to the person themselves.
Actual/Potential (S/N) - Actual things that exist, vs. things that don't exactly need to "exist".
Logical/Emotive (T/F) - Duh.
Rational/Irrational (J/P) - Determining something if and only if it is determinable vs. determining something whenever it is needed. (LOL, gotta work on this one.)

It appears that a person has to prefer one or the other, if only just a little bit, and what results is type. The "functions" come from figuring out what happens when you combine these Dichotomies, say Objective Sensing, or Subjective Ethics.

SO, you can say that an INFj type is used to thinking Rationally, Subjectively, Intuitively, and Emotionally. Thus, they cannot have an Irrational "function" be the main method of thinking, because that is not a "rational" function that "determines something", it is an "irrational" function.

Of course, calling J/P just being responsable is silly, it has to do with a basic level of how you think: organization of thought comes with a price, you have to be able to cut off lots of things, alternatively, taking everything into account comes with a price, and that is your thoughts become disorganized.

The rest, the things that follow, vary greatly. The problem becomes to what extent is Socionics exactly correct or not. What are the limits to what we can say with this idea of "type"? The limits of this system are actually greater then we think.

[Gilly]

Ok...

[Transigent]

I eat balls.

Exactly!

For instance, typing somebody N simply because they lack S is entirely incorrect, and totally taking this "socionics model" for granted, as this person may lack N even more then they lack S, thus making them some kind of S type anyway.

[Gilly]

Huh? That wasn't supposed to be a dis. I just thought it was fairly self-explanatory. But you make a good point in that second post.

[Jarno]

too much speculation.

[Gilly]

too much speculation.

In terms of his explanations for origins of types, I agree.

[Jarno]

To get on topic:

Type is origined in the way we perceive reality.
That's the essence of a type. Not the 4 dichotomy's.

Playing with the idea to add a gayness dichotomy is useless, because it has nothing to do with perceiving reality.

[Transigent]

To get on topic:

Type is origined in the way we perceive reality.
That's the essence of a type. Not the 4 dichotomy's.

Playing with the idea to add a gayness dichotomy is useless, because it has nothing to do with perceiving reality.

How totally INTp of you to miss the entire point.

And how do you know if gayness changes the way you perceive reality?

[Animal]

I think I get what you're saying Transigent. It sounds like essentially the same thign I said in another thread a ways back:

Subtypes don't exist in the same way types don't exist. They are just another theoretical schema imposed over a much more varied and variable reality.

From this thread: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=11363&start=0

[discojoe]

Why do we need to know where types "came from"?

[Logos]

Why do we need to know where types "came from"?

Transgient Darwin's On the Origins of Types does seem to have its share of in purpose.

[Gilly]

Why do we need to know where types "came from"?

Personally, I don't think it's really that feasible, but hypothetically speaking, it might help us learn more about deep motivations tied to function preferences or some such,

[Transigent]

Why do we need to know where types "came from"?

You don't need to know where types came from. All it is, is that folks need to remember that we really can't know where types came from, and this unknown limits what we can say about people using the language of socionics. Seems obvious to you? Well, congratulations; but some other people I don't think really understand this concept.

I am seeing lots of stupid things that maybe people wouldn't talk about if they would really understand the basic concept that is presented here. Things like "crosstypes" and "exertion types" and "type changing" (and not only from tcaud) are borne from taking a rigid conceptual system too far into actual reality, and finding out that it doesn't work, so instead of realizing that the system itself is limited, you just bend the system around until it fits what you think it should fit.

Does it make sense to say the brain reorganizes itself whenever you use a different function? The type will never ever match up 100% with actuality, so whenever you see a small discrepancy, it doesn't make sense to add yet another structure on-top of socionics, because you will be adding forever.

You know, like in the post Mr. Baby quoted, about the subtypes. To act as if it is a big deal "subtypes exist/don't exist", to make this into a big deal is silly, because nothing "exists" in this subject, but we use what is useful for us in thinking about it. If we can come up with a somewhat consistent idea of subtypes that fit reality, and explain some interesting things, then we use subtypes. If it doesn't really match up to reality, then we don't use 'em.

It's a matching game really. If a "structure" of ideals (like socionics with the functions and such) matches up to reality (actual people), then it is convenient to use, and the manipulation of that structure may lead to new insights about the thing that it attempts to describe...but...some people don't understand this completely, and will go to use the "structure" AS IF it were actually existing, and this is entirely incorrect.

It may seem obvious to many people, and to those who don't see it as so obvious, they may just ignore this entire thing. All I am really trying to do is to point out exactly how and where and why these two differing philosophies will contradict one another, so when you see the situation in the future, it is easier to understand.

As this type of thing not only appears in Socionics, but everywhere to a certain extent. It may not be important to you personally, you may even think it is obvious. Maybe you need a certain amount of intuition to completely understand the context of the subject, maybe not. I just get a kick out of the different reactions, and use this type of thing, not only to try to inform people, but also to see how different types react.

[KSpin]

Destructive criticism, how useful.

[krieger]

Transigent goes compliant construct-creating. How very ENTp of him.

Okay, first comes the person, and then comes the type. There is no chicken and egg thing here. We were not all created with a "type" first, with the preceeding events obscuring this "original type", so that if we look deep enough we can find what we were originally "made" as. No, it goes biology first and formost. Your chemicals make you who you are, and the type is a general conception of what happens with people in general.

Now realize that biology also has its antecedent: evolution. As you know evolution is a process of optimalization that makes a set of variables or the constitution of a system converge to an optimum of adaptation to certain external circumstances. But what are the circumstances of an intelligent system, or as put in other words; a system the entire purpose of which is adaptation itself? It's external circumstances would have to be found in every thinkable situation. Things you could think of: mathematics, or the laws of physics. Now what if there were systems of logical coherence, inherent to our universe, that we have not discovered yet? Socionics claims to be one such system. The claim is that biology adapts to socionics, not vice versa. Of course this is a claim not to be accepted uncritically, and one that needs to be tested, but also one that miraculously holds against the inductive experience of a large group of people. Ignore that fact if you wish, just don't expect everyone to follow your lead.

[Transigent]

Labcoat doesn't get it either. How very ISTj of him.

Okay, seriously now, for everyone reading. If you want to see some examples of just *what* total lack of entails, read any post by tcaud or any post by this labcoat guy.

Now realize that biology also has its antecedent: evolution. As you know evolution is a process of optimalization that makes a set of variables or the constitution of a system converge to an optimum of adaptation to certain external circumstances.

So goes the *process*, but the mistake comes when...aw fuck...lemme just let you demonstrate where the mistakes come in. You just do it so well:

But what are the circumstances of an intelligent system, or as put in other words; a system the entire purpose of which is adaptation itself? It's external circumstances would have to be found in every thinkable situation. Things you could think of: mathematics, or the laws of physics. Now what if there were systems of logical coherence, inherent to our universe, that we have not discovered yet?

The mistake comes when you think of the result of the process actually being the driving force. It's like mistaking the driver of the car as the motor. It's from not using your "big picture" thinking. In your brain you have something like "evolution" that is linearly defined, with no conceptual layers, so you fail to see the hierarchy of concepts (Ne), because you think of hierarchy of structure instead (Se). Ergo, you start to mistake the process and concept of "evolution" as something that is a structure itself. But it AINT an actual structure Mr. ISTj, and it will never be one no matter how much you BELIEVE it is, and no matter to what extent you can exactly define it.

You need to use your to really see where the abstract structure ends, and where reality begins. (Just because you a Beta ST doesn't mean you can't use your Ne! I've seen it done before! Don't be a stubborn ass!)

But I am going off topic, as you won't understand a word of what I am saying. And I am having way too much fun with this.

Okay, let me put it simpler.

The term "evolution" is something that describes a process that is a result of physical laws. Nobody knows all these physical laws, and nobody knows why they always work, but no evidence has ever been shown that they don't work, (but this is besides the point.) Evolution and biology is ALSO not a chicken and egg thing. Evolution follows from biology which follows from chemistry which follows from physics which follows from...well, God, or whatever you choose to believe (because every logical system has it's roots in something.)

"Evolution" is not something that "exists", it is a "concept" that we use to talk about the logical consequences of this particular universe and these particular laws of physics.

Socionics claims to be one such system. The claim is that biology adapts to socionics, not vice versa. Of course this is a claim not to be accepted uncritically, and one that needs to be tested, but also one that miraculously holds against the inductive experience of a large group of people. Ignore that fact if you wish, just don't expect everyone to follow your lead.

I suppose if you believe in it, and you think it works, it doesn't matter if it's actually true or not to your own subjective experience. I prefer to keep my conceptions limited to things that more or less actually seem to exist.

[krieger]

First off, while you are under the impression that I present the argument of socionics as the result of evolution as an end-all argument in itself, my intent is to point out your inadequacy in failing to involve the principle in your reasoning in the first place. You claim that there is no sensible reason to surmise that socionics is true and valid. This is simply false. If you want to declare that the reasons in question are not to your liking then be my guest.

Okay, seriously now, for everyone reading. If you want to see some examples of just *what* total lack of entails, read any post by tcaud or any post by this labcoat guy.

And here we all were thinking you were trying to disempower the use of socionics terms to describe behavior. Care to tell us when you're done making up your mind?

The term "evolution" is something that describes a process that is a result of physical laws. Nobody knows all these physical laws, and nobody knows why they always work, but no evidence has ever been shown that they don't work, (but this is besides the point.) Evolution and biology is ALSO not a chicken and egg thing. Evolution follows from biology which follows from chemistry which follows from physics which follows from...well, God, or whatever you choose to believe (because every logical system has it's roots in something.)

The mistake comes when you think of the result of the process actually being the driving force.

That's your mistake. The fact that the physical and biological laws put a limit on the possible results of the evolutionary process is irrelevant to the question. We observe in hindsight that certain optimums have been reached: plantlife, animal life, even intelligence. If we now detect the existence of socionics in our personality, there is nothing to keep us from theorizing that this is an optimum of the same kind. It's a standing possibility to be acknowledged, and since you deny it is there without supplying any reason as to why it is impossible, you are wrong.

And we are well aware that the burden of proof is eventually on our shoulders, don't you worry about that.

"Evolution" is not something that "exists", it is a "concept" that we use to talk about the logical consequences of this particular universe and these particular laws of physics.

Appearantly you feel comfortable putting a limit on your imagination; nothing wrong with that, just don't drag us down with you, ok?

I prefer to keep my conceptions limited to things that more or less actually seem to exist.

Ah, thanks for confirming that. Nice subtle use of the word 'seem' there.

[Transigent]

Okay, you are such an idiot I cannot even begin to comprehend it. I am not going to hold your hand and walk you through your own idiocy, even though I really would love some more examples of retarded thought processes. You are like tcaud and this Phadreus guy, totally fucking blind typing yourself "Intuitive" just because you are a fucking nerdball.

Combination of bad genes, and wrong type for your interests. If you were good enough, your type wouldn't fuck you up as much and as obviously, but hell, I guess you are lucky in that you have a pretty strong hidden agenda in believing your own bullshit, so I don't feel too bad for ya.

Whatever, you don't have a clue what I am talking about do you? I might as well just delete this post, since you obviously don't seem to get it.

[Gilly]

You're both arguing a pointless topic the applications of which are so far flung from reality that your sheer willingness to debate it in such "depth" makes you both look like complete fools.

[Transigent]

You're both arguing a pointless topic the applications of which are so far flung from reality that your sheer willingness to debate it in such "depth" makes you both look like complete fools.

AHAHAHAH

You think anything on this forum is directly "practical"?

So, Mr. Practicality, you have been on these forums for over a year now, so why do you still know jack shit about Socionics?

[Logos]

You're both arguing a pointless topic the applications of which are so far flung from reality that your sheer willingness to debate it in such "depth" makes you both look like complete fools.

AHAHAHAH

You think anything on this forum is directly "practical"?

So, Mr. Practicality, you have been on these forums for over a year now, so why do you still know jack shit about Socionics?

Why do you think that you do?

[tcaudilllg]

Alright Transigent, you've made your challenge.

Now, make your case. If you want us to forget exertion theory, you need something equally concrete in its place, correct?

[Gilly]

You're both arguing a pointless topic the applications of which are so far flung from reality that your sheer willingness to debate it in such "depth" makes you both look like complete fools.

AHAHAHAH

You think anything on this forum is directly "practical"?

So, Mr. Practicality, you have been on these forums for over a year now, so why do you still know jack shit about Socionics?

I'm not saying it's practical, although the potential implications are somewhat obvious, I think.

What I'm saying to you is that the shit you're spouting has nothing to do with Socionics theory itself or anything that is going to help further anyone's understanding of it, yet you continue to bicker like insane people about these wild abstract implications like it's something even worth speculating on in regards to comprehending and using Socionics.

[Logos]

You're both arguing a pointless topic the applications of which are so far flung from reality that your sheer willingness to debate it in such "depth" makes you both look like complete fools.

AHAHAHAH

You think anything on this forum is directly "practical"?

So, Mr. Practicality, you have been on these forums for over a year now, so why do you still know jack shit about Socionics?

I'm not saying it's practical, although the potential implications are somewhat obvious, I think.

What I'm saying to you is that the shit you're spouting has nothing to do with Socionics theory itself or anything that is going to help further anyone's understanding of it, yet you continue to bicker like insane people about these wild abstract implications like it's something even worth speculating on in regards to comprehending and using Socionics.

And his personal attacks will certainly do little in the way of convincing us of his Socionics knowledge.

[Exodus]

Oh Gilly, what would this forum be without you. Chaos, surely.

[tcaudilllg]

[...] yet you continue to bicker like insane people about these wild abstract implications like it's something even worth speculating on in regards to comprehending and using Socionics.

That's interesting. Quite frankly, it's just a matter of "living in the future". Here's the deal: your model of reality shapes what's possible. The better your model, the more is possible. Restrain how one thinks about the model, and restrain the possible avenues available to them. (you can't follow a plan you can't think of)

Two sides to this fundamental issue. The one says, the tighter your model, the more easily it is to explore in depth. The broader the model, the more immediate solutions you find, but the more difficult it is to understand how to construct many-faceted problems.

Transigent fundamentally sides with the former. labcoat and I prefer the latter, because we suspect the former has reached its farthest frontiers at this time. labcoat and I say, "let us present you with a broader model; accept this model and explore it at your leisure." Transigent says, "no, I'm sticking with my model that I know so well, and I'll leave the rest to 'God'." To which we and labcoat say, "perhaps you should broaden your definition of 'God'."

Transigent's basic mindset pretty much reflects the ideological heart of conservatism, which I'm quite certain you have intuited as similar to what I just described. However, Transigent is also looking at another angle: "I'll expand my model in secret while you twiddle away with this already exhausted model, thus giving me the advantage. If only I can persuade you to 'stay still'...." That's the strategic side of conservatism.

Obviously the strategic side of liberalism is to weaken faith in the already understood model in favor of immersing others in a broader model that is not well defined and which, they find themselves unable to successfully navigate, as the inverse of the conservative strategy. But labcoat and I think of that as dishonest, and at the very least we do not consciously employ it. (e.g., we're psychologically healthy)

[Gilly]

Oh Gilly, what would this forum be without you. Chaos, surely.

[Gilly]

[...] yet you continue to bicker like insane people about these wild abstract implications like it's something even worth speculating on in regards to comprehending and using Socionics.

That's interesting. Quite frankly, it's just a matter of "living in the future". Here's the deal: your model of reality shapes what's possible. The better your model, the more is possible. Restrain how one thinks about the model, and restrain the possible avenues available to them. (you can't follow a plan you can't think of)

Two sides to this fundamental issue. The one says, the tighter your model, the more easily it is to explore in depth. The broader the model, the more immediate solutions you find, but the more difficult it is to understand how to construct many-faceted problems.

Transigent fundamentally sides with the former. labcoat and I prefer the latter, because we suspect the former has reached its farthest frontiers at this time. labcoat and I say, "let us present you with a broader model; accept this model and explore it at your leisure." Transigent says, "no, I'm sticking with my model that I know so well, and I'll leave the rest to 'God'." To which we and labcoat say, "perhaps you should broaden your definition of 'God'."

Transigent's basic mindset pretty much reflects the ideological heart of conservatism, which I'm quite certain you have intuited as similar to what I just described. However, Transigent is also looking at another angle: "I'll expand my model in secret while you twiddle away with this already exhausted model, thus giving me the advantage. If only I can persuade you to 'stay still'...." That's the strategic side of conservatism.

Obviously the strategic side of liberalism is to weaken faith in the already understood model in favor of immersing others in a broader model that is not well defined and which, they find themselves unable to successfully navigate, as the inverse of the conservative strategy. But labcoat and I think of that as dishonest, and at the very least we do not consciously employ it. (e.g., we're psychologically healthy)

*blinks*

[Gilly]

You're both arguing a pointless topic the applications of which are so far flung from reality that your sheer willingness to debate it in such "depth" makes you both look like complete fools.

AHAHAHAH

You think anything on this forum is directly "practical"?

So, Mr. Practicality, you have been on these forums for over a year now, so why do you still know jack shit about Socionics?

I'm not saying it's practical, although the potential implications are somewhat obvious, I think.

What I'm saying to you is that the shit you're spouting has nothing to do with Socionics theory itself or anything that is going to help further anyone's understanding of it, yet you continue to bicker like insane people about these wild abstract implications like it's something even worth speculating on in regards to comprehending and using Socionics.

And his personal attacks will certainly do little in the way of convincing us of his Socionics knowledge.

Especially when he's wasting his breath on the topic to begin with

[Hitta]

Funny thing is that I've always thought that everything has been learned. Femininity and masculinity imo are just products of social learning theory. Even the more muscular bodily structure of men could be a result of conditioning from birth. Also, people say that someone has done something from birth neglect the fact that the baby could theoretically learn stuff within the womb. Every move or flex could result in a spontaneous reaction that causes differences in the personality or adaptive behavior of the infant. Personality could theoretically be consider nothing more than an adaptation. I've man was never stimulated by any sensory details, would man know how to think, or do anything. Although this could be very hard to produce because the bodily make up of an individual could be considered sensory details. If everything were removed, all 5 senses, would man be conscious?