How Ideas work in society

[Hitta]

I just quickly put this together so its a bit messy.

[Hitta]

For every New Idea Creator, there is an Implementor. For every critic, there is a follower. They back each other up. New idea people need implementors to spread the word, critics need followers to conform.

[Logos]

How did you derive the organization of this chart?

[Hitta]

How did you derive the organization of this chart?

+Ne/-Ni is idea producing.... its seeking -Se/+Si is idea attack

+Ni/-Ne is flaw finding.... its seeking +Se/-Si which is the following of ideas... +Ni/-Ne find flaws so that +Se/-Si can keep living their system, they compliment each other.

[Hitta]

So according to your system, I hate INTps, ENTjs, ENFps, INFjs, ESFps, ISFjs, ESTjs, and ISTps, which isn't true at all. Stop pulling all this shit out of your ass.

Um no...hmmm..

yea you dumbfuck thats exactly what i meant, now go inspect your own colon with your tongue.

[Gilly]

Herzy, I feel the need to let you know that the thought that there are girls out there who actually have insightful minds and aren't just nerds is very reassuring to me.

[Hitta]

Maybe I'd consider it if you're system actually made the slightest bit of sense. Considering that it doesn't, your counterattack doesn't mean jack shit.

Well, as to the idea that I don't think you have a reason for disagreeing with my system, I challenge you to tell me whats wrong with it. I have a feeling I won't get a good response to this, because you aren't capable of logical thought.

[strrrng]

a lot of that is wrong. group 2 is not resistant to change at all. an ISTp is not a follower. I don't really see an NF as a fault finder, as that would be more NT.

for the correct stuff....the new idea types were right, but other types could be in that category. and the implementors seemed pretty accurate.

N's come up with revolutionary ideas. S's apply shit.

[Hitta]

a lot of that is wrong. group 2 is not resistant to change at all. an ISTp is not a follower. I don't really see an NF as a fault finder, as that would be more NT.

for the correct stuff....the new idea types were right, but other types could be in that category. and the implementors seemed pretty accurate.

N's come up with revolutionary ideas. S's apply shit.

Groups 2 and 4 are very resistant to change. The whole concept of being a critic is to cut down innovation. And if feeling types can create ideas, feeling types can't critique down ideas??? That doesn't make much sense. ENFps and INFjs see all the negative possibilities and other alternatives. They see the problems with things. ISTp is very much a follower, they aren't much into routine, but there sensing +Se according to gulenko, is that of deduction of authority, or submissiveness(or of retaliation).

[strrrng]

Groups 2 and 4 are very resistant to change. The whole concept of being a critic is to cut down innovation. And if feeling types can create ideas, feeling types can't critique down ideas??? That doesn't make much sense. ENFps and INFjs see all the negative possibilities and other alternatives. They see the problems with things. ISTp is very much a follower, they aren't much into routine, but there sensing +Se according to gulenko, is that of deduction of authority, or submissiveness(or of retaliation).

lol .... "according to Gulenko".....

SJ is the temperament of "followers"....they are the ones subservient to authority. You actually think an SP is a follower? maybe more than an N but they still do whatever they want. My brother and a good friend of mine are ESTp and are completely independent. As for the NF critique thing, I wasn't entirely against it, it's just that the thinkers are more fault-finding with ideas. I would agree that group 4 for the most part is resistant to change, but explain to me how an INTp or ENFp is. that's absurd.

N's love change.....they hate routine.

[Hitta]

Groups 2 and 4 are very resistant to change. The whole concept of being a critic is to cut down innovation. And if feeling types can create ideas, feeling types can't critique down ideas??? That doesn't make much sense. ENFps and INFjs see all the negative possibilities and other alternatives. They see the problems with things. ISTp is very much a follower, they aren't much into routine, but there sensing +Se according to gulenko, is that of deduction of authority, or submissiveness(or of retaliation).

lol .... "according to Gulenko".....

SJ is the temperament of "followers"....they are the ones subservient to authority. You actually think an SP is a follower? maybe more than an N but they still do whatever they want. My brother and a good friend of mine are ESTp and are completely independent. As for the NF critique thing, I wasn't entirely against it, it's just that the thinkers are more fault-finding with ideas. I would agree that group 4 for the most part is resistant to change, but explain to me how an INTp or ENFp is. that's absurd.

N's love change.....they hate routine.

Lol... have you ever met an ESFj or an ISFp, they aren't "subservient" to authority. They may follow traditions, but they don't let people tell them what to do. INTps and ENFps see the faults in ideas. By definition, that is a resistance to change.

[strrrng]

no, "by definition" resistance to change is fucking resistance to change. fear of the unknown, fondness for routine and familiarity, preference of tried-and-trusted methods. That is resistance to change. I find fault in ideas - that is called logical analysis. :wink:

you can't argue with the premise that N's enjoy/accept change while S's don't. Whether it's myers briggs or socionics, that is a well known fact.

Lol... have you ever met an ESFj or an ISFp, they aren't "subservient" to authority.

if an ISFp isn't subservient to authority, then how could an ISTp possibly be?

[Hitta]

no, "by definition" resistance to change is fucking resistance to change. fear of the unknown, fondness for routine and familiarity, preference of tried-and-trusted methods. That is resistance to change. I find fault in ideas - that is called logical analysis. :wink:

you can't argue with the premise that N's enjoy/accept change while S's don't. Whether it's myers briggs or socionics, that is a well known fact.

Lol... have you ever met an ESFj or an ISFp, they aren't "subservient" to authority.

if an ISFp isn't subservient to authority, then how could an ISTp possibly be?

ISFps and ISTps use a different sensing, ISFps use +Si/-Se ISTps use -Si/+Se

And, no that is not a well known fact, I have no idea where you heard that but I've never heard that before. +Ne/-Ni and +Si/-Se are the functions of change originality capture of authority and relativity, +Ni/-Ne and -Si/+Se are the functions of absolution, problems in ideas, and deduction of authority

-Ni +Ne -Si and +Se are resistant to change

[strrrng]

+Ne is my 2nd function and I'm definitely not resistant to change. I mean, if I formulate a routine that works, I'll use it, but variety is a positive thing to me.

[mikemex]

i wish we could have a rating system for members where underneath all avatars would also say "makes sense rating" so that people would'nt have to read all this "dumb fuck" and "colon" shit.

Since when popularity is linked to reason? I thought it was the opposite, actually.

Also, I do consider myself to be a critic and somewhat resistant to change as the chart suggests. A good example is the linux community, which is dominated by alpha NTs. I hate it when they change things almost daily, just for the sake of doing something different. Not better, just different. Like "my own distro" that does the same thing as the hundreds already available.

[Hitta]

+Ne is my 2nd function and I'm definitely not resistant to change. I mean, if I formulate a routine that works, I'll use it, but variety is a positive thing to me.

+Ne and -Ni is your second function if your an INTj, which means you would not be resistant to change

[Hitta]

i wish we could have a rating system for members where underneath all avatars would also say "makes sense rating" so that people would'nt have to read all this "dumb fuck" and "colon" shit.

I said that because of something he said in another thread.

[Mea]

i wish we could have a rating system for members where underneath all avatars would also say "makes sense rating" so that people would'nt have to read all this "dumb fuck" and "colon" shit.

I said that because of something he said in another thread.

Herzy's a she.

[mustachio]

so, semi-duals who hate each other? rationals who love change? an ENFp who is resistant to change? an ISTp without independance of mind? what's an implementor and how come ESTj isn't one of them? how in the hell did you come up with this diagram? what does it mean? i think you got some explaining to do?

how come critiquers of ideas get along with followers? why do followers hate the ones who implement the ideas? and what about that word? hate? of course, we can easily recognise the famous Fe-Fi divide but what the hell did you summon around it? it looks like the bad premise to a science fiction flop.

these ideas who creates them? the "new idea" group right? so, at one point or another, the followers will be forced to follow whether or not they like the first group right? it all seems to point to the conclusion that one or two quadras in socionics seem to have a certain advantage over the others. the critiquers and followers despite their resistance will be force-fed new ideas by creators and implementors. according to your diagram of course. you're making Gamma and Delta look like a bunch of weak-willed blockheads.

[strrrng]

+Ne and -Ni is your second function if your an INTj, which means you would not be resistant to change

so, you were referring to them as base functions

[Elro]

I just quickly put this together so its a bit messy.

Obligatory disclaimer: this is NOT Classical Socionics - it is hitta's idea of an improvement to Socionics.

[Hitta]

so, semi-duals who hate each other? rationals who love change? an ENFp who is resistant to change? an ISTp without independance of mind? what's an implementor and how come ESTj isn't one of them? how in the hell did you come up with this diagram? what does it mean? i think you got some explaining to do?

how come critiquers of ideas get along with followers? why do followers hate the ones who implement the ideas? and what about that word? hate? of course, we can easily recognise the famous Fe-Fi divide but what the hell did you summon around it? it looks like the bad premise to a science fiction flop.

these ideas who creates them? the "new idea" group right? so, at one point or another, the followers will be forced to follow whether or not they like the first group right? it all seems to point to the conclusion that one or two quadras in socionics seem to have a certain advantage over the others. the critiquers and followers despite their resistance will be force-fed new ideas by creators and implementors. according to your diagram of course. you're making Gamma and Delta look like a bunch of weak-willed blockheads.

Um no I don't have any semiduals hating each other(although by hate i just mean it by the function in question). ENFp are very resistant to change. And about the ISTp, what does independence of mind have to do with anything. An Implementor is one that brings ideas into society, like the captains of the ideas. Critics and followers are both resistance to change(one of the reason they are duals with each other). And no I'm not making gamma and delta look bad.

[Hitta]

I just quickly put this together so its a bit messy.

Obligatory disclaimer: this is NOT Classical Socionics - it is hitta's idea of an improvement to Socionics.

If i hear that my idea isn't classical socionics i will beat you over the head with a long steel dildo

[strrrng]

ENFp are very resistant to change.

my dad is ENFp and is innovative, ideational and very much prone to change. I don't think your concept is exactly valid, albeit comprehensive.

[Elro]

I just quickly put this together so its a bit messy.

Obligatory disclaimer: this is NOT Classical Socionics - it is hitta's idea of an improvement to Socionics.

If i hear that my idea isn't classical socionics

What do you think classical socionics means?

i will beat you over the head with a long steel dildo

Is that your approach to someone pointing out unpleasant truths? Not very effective, imo. You should try listening to others sometimes - they might have a point.

Oh, and before you attempt to act all inflated again, just know that you left several huge openings for insults there that I elected not to take. Please don't act like a dick.

[Hitta]

I just quickly put this together so its a bit messy.

Obligatory disclaimer: this is NOT Classical Socionics - it is hitta's idea of an improvement to Socionics.

If i hear that my idea isn't classical socionics

What do you think classical socionics means?

i will beat you over the head with a long steel dildo

Is that your approach to someone pointing out unpleasant truths? Not very effective, imo. You should try listening to others sometimes - they might have a point.

Oh, and before you attempt to act all inflated again, just know that you left several huge openings for insults there that I elected not to take. Please don't act like a dick.

Nothing is classical socionics, socionics is an idea. Its a sociological construct. And what constitutes something fitting in it. I mean everyone changes the definitions from the classical socionics. I sit here getting blasted for my ideas, when dual type theory that tracillaug talks about breaks classical socionics definitions too. How about the fact that everyone seems to have a stereotypical idea of how types are supposed to act. Is that breaking classical socionics. Why don't we put a disclaimer on ever single person that says something that a individual disagrees with. My theory is based on what I think that classical socionics is, because classical socionics isn't this set system. If it were, it'd be worthless. I'm sick and tired of saying "this theory doesn't correlate with classical socionics" because in reality, nothing does.

[strrrng]

wow, that was a really good post (not joking). I liked the way you presented the idea of socionics and what it really is - cause you're right; it is just a concept/construct, and everyone's views diverge because it isn't set in stone. You definitely just redeemed yourself after that pretentious "relative" philosophy post, lol.

[Hitta]

ENFp are very resistant to change.

my dad is ENFp and is innovative, ideational and very much prone to change. I don't think your concept is exactly valid, albeit comprehensive.

ENFps are good at foresight and intuition of removal, not intuition of addition. ENFps reflect on things. They don't try to create news ideas intentionally. ENFps do have a agenda of needing to understand how things work, but that is not the creation of new ideas. ENFps might unintentionally run into a new discovery, but +Ne/-Ni is the functions of originality and the intuition of add and possibilities.


To explain it better, both intuitions are that of possibilities, +Ne/-Ni is to see all the possible possibilities. -Ne/+Ni is to remove all the possibilities and come to an absolute conclusion.

[mustachio]

so, semi-duals who hate each other? rationals who love change? an ENFp who is resistant to change? an ISTp without independance of mind? what's an implementor and how come ESTj isn't one of them? how in the hell did you come up with this diagram? what does it mean? i think you got some explaining to do?

how come critiquers of ideas get along with followers? why do followers hate the ones who implement the ideas? and what about that word? hate? of course, we can easily recognise the famous Fe-Fi divide but what the hell did you summon around it? it looks like the bad premise to a science fiction flop.

these ideas who creates them? the "new idea" group right? so, at one point or another, the followers will be forced to follow whether or not they like the first group right? it all seems to point to the conclusion that one or two quadras in socionics seem to have a certain advantage over the others. the critiquers and followers despite their resistance will be force-fed new ideas by creators and implementors. according to your diagram of course. you're making Gamma and Delta look like a bunch of weak-willed blockheads.

Um no I don't have any semiduals hating each other(although by hate i just mean it by the function in question). ENFp are very resistant to change. And about the ISTp, what does independence of mind have to do with anything. An Implementor is one that brings ideas into society, like the captains of the ideas. Critics and followers are both resistance to change(one of the reason they are duals with each other). And no I'm not making gamma and delta look bad.

i think you need to revise your intertype relations a bit. you provide a diagram but are utterly unable to explain what you're trying to force down our throats. what does independance of mind have to do with anything? how about you go read the articles available on the site before posting. you can't even define what you're doing. what are these ideas exactly? ENFp are always looking for new trends, new people, new "ideas". how did you come up with this new concept where they are resistant to change? they hate being bogged down. provide some valid info to back up your diagram.

btw, genius, ISTj are Ne polr meaning they're totally resistant to change. you need to try mastering a subject before ever even thinking about changing it. how's that for resistance to change?

[strrrng]

To explain it better, both intuitions are that of possibilities, +Ne/-Ni is to see all the possible possibilities. -Ne/+Ni is to remove all the possibilities and come to an absolute conclusion.

I don't get why any Ne would want to winnow the possibilities for a conclusion. How was +/- developed in the first place?

[Hitta]

so, semi-duals who hate each other? rationals who love change? an ENFp who is resistant to change? an ISTp without independance of mind? what's an implementor and how come ESTj isn't one of them? how in the hell did you come up with this diagram? what does it mean? i think you got some explaining to do?

how come critiquers of ideas get along with followers? why do followers hate the ones who implement the ideas? and what about that word? hate? of course, we can easily recognise the famous Fe-Fi divide but what the hell did you summon around it? it looks like the bad premise to a science fiction flop.

these ideas who creates them? the "new idea" group right? so, at one point or another, the followers will be forced to follow whether or not they like the first group right? it all seems to point to the conclusion that one or two quadras in socionics seem to have a certain advantage over the others. the critiquers and followers despite their resistance will be force-fed new ideas by creators and implementors. according to your diagram of course. you're making Gamma and Delta look like a bunch of weak-willed blockheads.

Um no I don't have any semiduals hating each other(although by hate i just mean it by the function in question). ENFp are very resistant to change. And about the ISTp, what does independence of mind have to do with anything. An Implementor is one that brings ideas into society, like the captains of the ideas. Critics and followers are both resistance to change(one of the reason they are duals with each other). And no I'm not making gamma and delta look bad.

i think you need to revise your intertype relations a bit. you provide a diagram but are utterly unable to explain what you're trying to force down our throats. what does independance of mind have to do with anything? how about you go read the articles available on the site before posting. you can't even define what you're doing. what are these ideas exactly? ENFp are always looking for new trends, new people, new "ideas". how did you come up with this new concept where they are resistant to change? they hate being bogged down. provide some valid info to back up your diagram.

btw, genius, ISTj are Ne polr meaning they're totally resistant to change. you need to try mastering a subject before ever even thinking about changing it. how's that for resistance to change?

What the hell are you talking about with the words independence of minds, I've never said those words. And apparently you haven't seen my model

[mustachio]

of course you haven't. you haven't delved into any of the articles deep enough. have you ever even skimmed them? you should have mentioned that you are a crackpot. do us and yourself a favour will ya? move your stuff to Non-socionic Type theories.

[Hitta]

of course you haven't. you haven't delved into any of the articles deep enough. have you ever even skimmed them? you should have mentioned that you are a crackpot. do us and yourself a favour will ya? move your stuff to Non-socionic Type theories.

hahaha crack pot..... your the one putting words in my mouth that I didn't say

[Hitta]

you wouldn't understand the concept of creativity and original ideas if it ass raped you

[mustachio]

reread yourself and start laughing at your own ignorance and stupidity. maybe you got a couple of people fooled but i can see that you're just another idiot who can barely read anything but their own words. you talk of original ideas but you can't even formulate one.

you wouldn't understand the concept of creativity and original ideas if it ass raped you

stop repeating things your daddy tells you before going to bed.

[Hitta]

reread yourself and start laughing at your own ignorance and stupidity. maybe you got a couple of people fooled but i can see that you're just another idiot who can barely read anything but their own words. you talk of original ideas but you can't even formulate one.

you wouldn't understand the concept of creativity and original ideas if it ass raped you

stop repeating things your daddy tells you before going to bed.

Um... how about you go kill yourself and rid the world of your stupidity. You have the IQ of an strawberry ice cream sandwich. Your one of those people that all they do is criticize criticize criticize. And you don't even know why you criticize, its like you've been programmed to do it, and hell you don't even know what you're criticizing. Your nothing more than a social slave. Just a simple variable in a math equation; continuous and predictable. You are just a another symbol, like how the american flag stands for injustice. Symbolic of everything else. In one word, plain. Just a plain mundane slave of society.

[Jonathan]

I shouldn't reply to this thread, but whatever...why not...

* Would you at least acknowledge that your system and interpretation of +/- is sufficiently different from classical Socionics that people would not necessarily be in the same type in your system that they would be in classical Socionics? Similarly, do you recognize that the original use of +/- doesn't imply the dichotomy between limiting vs. expanding that you propose? (Or if you've read something that says it does, could you show us where that is?)

* It seems that a lot of this is inspired from writings in Socionics that say that the Alphas are the idea originators. You've extended this somewhat to include all merry/subjectivist Ns, but are you aware that the original idea that Alphas are the idea originators has been discredited somewhat in the Socionics community? The issue is that Alphas come up with new ideas for systems, but other people do come up with new ideas related to other areas.

* Are you aware that classical Socionics does not say people will "hate" their conflict/super-ego types? It just predicts conflict in long-term relationships, but that's very different from hate.

* Would you acknowledge that your tendency to state things in a total, absolute manner, with a tendency to seem to fail to acknowledge the differences between your ideas and Socionics proper, is likely a major cause of people's resistance to your ideas? Put another way: Maybe the way you present your ideas is the reason why people seem resistant to them. And maybe that's why you think so many types are opposed to ideas in general.

* Would you acknowledge that sometimes stating things that are clearly inaccurate or exaggerated does not actually serve the cause of "ideas" but rather tends to drown out better ideas, hence actually hindering ideas? Conversely, are you able to see that some people are both profilific generators of new ideas AND critical of other ideas they perceive as inferior? Do you recognize that it's not an "either or" proposition?

* What do you make of all the famous people in various Socionics benchmark lists who came up with important new ideas but are listed as types that you say are against ideas?

[Jonathan]

Nothing is classical socionics, socionics is an idea. Its a sociological construct. And what constitutes something fitting in it. I mean everyone changes the definitions from the classical socionics. I sit here getting blasted for my ideas, when dual type theory that tracillaug talks about breaks classical socionics definitions too. How about the fact that everyone seems to have a stereotypical idea of how types are supposed to act. Is that breaking classical socionics. Why don't we put a disclaimer on ever single person that says something that a individual disagrees with. My theory is based on what I think that classical socionics is, because classical socionics isn't this set system. If it were, it'd be worthless. I'm sick and tired of saying "this theory doesn't correlate with classical socionics" because in reality, nothing does.

By the way, I hadn't read this comment when I made my other comment, but I'll just mention that I understand your frustration. Clearly on this forum, it's easy to get the impression that there is no consensus in Socionics, because your inputs are primarily just other people on the forum, and bits of material on the internet, as well as personal observations.

However, there is a community of Socionists in Eastern Europe that apparently does have more of a consensus than you seem to think. I think Rick has done a good job in explaining what mainstream Socionics is, and what's the history, etc.

Now, it's very easy, though, to take comments from me and others and think they're saying that you're wrong because "this theory doesn't correlate with classical socionics"...but that's not what I'm saying, and it's not the point.

My point is that if you want people to take your ideas more seriously, you should learn to distinguish your theories from mainstream Socionics...that is, to understand clearly how they're different, and not just make all-encompassing statements without knowledge. I have no problem with someone proposing a theory, but I think it's always good to state it for what it is, and to be open to knowledge about what other theories there are, and be honest and clear about the differences.

[Hitta]

I shouldn't reply to this thread, but whatever...why not...

* Would you at least acknowledge that your system and interpretation of +/- is sufficiently different from classical Socionics that people would not necessarily be in the same type in your system that they would be in classical Socionics? Similarly, do you recognize that the original use of +/- doesn't imply the dichotomy between limiting vs. expanding that you propose? (Or if you've read something that says it does, could you show us where that is?) I don't agree that they would be different types. And um, the function definitions were defined by Gulenko, so I'm not proposing them.

* It seems that a lot of this is inspired from writings in Socionics that say that the Alphas are the idea originators. You've extended this somewhat to include all merry/subjectivist Ns, but are you aware that the original idea that Alphas are the idea originators has been discredited somewhat in the Socionics community? The issue is that Alphas come up with new ideas for systems, but other people do come up with new ideas related to other areas. I didn't say they didn't.

* Are you aware that classical Socionics does not say people will "hate" their conflict/super-ego types? It just predicts conflict in long-term relationships, but that's very different from hate. I explained that in a previous post, by the word hate i mean that there is conflict between the (-Ne/+Ni & +Se/-Si) and (+Ne/-Ni & -Se/+Si).

* Would you acknowledge that your tendency to state things in a total, absolute manner, with a tendency to seem to fail to acknowledge the differences between your ideas and Socionics proper, is likely a major cause of people's resistance to your ideas? Put another way: Maybe the way you present your ideas is the reason why people seem resistant to them. And maybe that's why you think so many types are opposed to ideas in general. I haven't said anything absolute, there is nothing that is absolute, this is theory.

* Would you acknowledge that sometimes stating things that are clearly inaccurate or exaggerated does not actually serve the cause of "ideas" but rather tends to drown out better ideas, hence actually hindering ideas? Conversely, are you able to see that some people are both profilific generators of new ideas AND critical of other ideas they perceive as inferior? Do you recognize that it's not an "either or" proposition? I haven't stated anything exaggerated, or if so show me what.

* What do you make of all the famous people in various Socionics benchmark lists who came up with important new ideas but are listed as types that you say are against ideas? I'm happy for them

[mustachio]

reread yourself and start laughing at your own ignorance and stupidity. maybe you got a couple of people fooled but i can see that you're just another idiot who can barely read anything but their own words. you talk of original ideas but you can't even formulate one.

you wouldn't understand the concept of creativity and original ideas if it ass raped you

stop repeating things your daddy tells you before going to bed.

Um... how about you go kill yourself and rid the world of your stupidity. You have the IQ of an strawberry ice cream sandwich. Your one of those people that all they do is criticize criticize criticize. And you don't even know why you criticize, its like you've been programmed to do it, and hell you don't even know what you're criticizing. Your nothing more than a social slave. Just a simple variable in a math equation; continuous and predictable. You are just a another symbol, like how the american flag stands for injustice. Symbolic of everything else. In one word, plain. Just a plain mundane slave of society.

sure and you're the all mighty king of ass farts! take a chill pill you fuckin moron.