1. ## Systems

Systems are Ti and Fi, never Si (nor Ni). Ti is about systems of logic, such as what you described. Fi is systems of ethics. After all, Ti is the external statics of fields. Fi is the internal statics of fields. Systems are, by definition, static. If they were not, it would be impossible to build on them.

2. Yep.

3. Why, did anyone say that systems were Si or Ni?

Anyway, you're right.

4. i've been getting my mind around the meaning of static and dynamic lately too. and how this plays out. good post.

5. Completely wrong to an abominable degree. The links between things are introvert functions. Si and Ni are introvert functions. Do the math and stop joking around.

6. Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Completely wrong to an abominable degree. The links between things are introvert functions. Si and Ni are introvert functions. Do the math and stop joking around.
Yes, the links (or relationships) between things are introverted functions... but Ni and Si are the ever changing relationships between events. Perhaps they are best described as the flow of things. With Ni, those things are abstract (non-physical). With Si, those things are physical (physical stimuli/changes and the physical sensations/states that result). Ni and Si are about about cause and effect relationships.

Ti and Fi are about systems, or the relationships between fixed things. Fi is the ethical relationships between fixed things. Ti is the logical relationships between fixed things. Perhaps Ti and Fi are best described as a network or structure. In order for a system to exist, there must be points in the system which are fixed so that other parts of the system may be built upon them.

7. Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Completely wrong to an abominable degree.
Enough of the arrogant bullshit already.

8. Originally Posted by Joy
Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Completely wrong to an abominable degree. The links between things are introvert functions. Si and Ni are introvert functions. Do the math and stop joking around.
Yes, the links (or relationships) between things are introverted functions... but Ni and Si are the ever changing relationships between events. Perhaps they are best described as the flow of things. With Ni, those things are abstract (non-physical). With Si, those things are physical (physical stimuli/changes and the physical sensations/states that result). Ni and Si are about about cause and effect relationships.

Ti and Fi are about systems, or the relationships between fixed things. Fi is the ethical relationships between fixed things. Ti is the logical relationships between fixed things. Perhaps Ti and Fi are best described as a network or structure. In order for a system to exist, there must be points in the system which are fixed so that other parts of the system may be built upon them.
But that's just it. Ti and Fi are much worse at understanding systems that already exist because they can't quickly bend themselves to understand other people's systems. Si and Ni are very quick at noticing systemacy in the world, understanding and using such systemacy for their own benefit.

Someone, (I hope it wasn't Phaedrus), mentioned that dynamics, when they play chess, have a habit of trying to understand the opponent's plan. Statics tend to have their own plan that they advance and try to overwhelm the opponent's plan through sheer power.

Your point about fixed points is excellent. But some fixed points are only temporarily fixed. If a person is involved with a few hundred systems of similar nature each day, Ti would usually use his own system to approximate something close enough and use his own system each time. Si would have to observe each system individually and do case by case work. Extremely inefficient, but far more accurate. Or, if they happened to feel like it, Si could do "whatever" to approach the same issue and just use personal experience.

Let's make an example of a tractor. I'm being slightly rough myself here, but I hope you'll forgive that. Anyway, Ni would easily get the idea of how a tractor works, but not the spesifics. Ti could probably reasonably well design a tractor and figure how it must work. Fi would understand easily the purpose of the tractor and how it ought to work. Si would have to see a tractor, play with the machinery, test it and observe how it works. This kind of playing around with a system, concrete interaction with it, is in my view necessary for Si to get an internal model of how something works. So if a system is complex enough that there is no simulator and hazardous enough that it can't be played with so as to gain experience, and inaccessible enough that it's functioning can't be directly observed, then and only then is Si unable to do anything. (And then Si will use other, more indirect tools.)

9. Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Originally Posted by Joy
Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Completely wrong to an abominable degree. The links between things are introvert functions. Si and Ni are introvert functions. Do the math and stop joking around.
Yes, the links (or relationships) between things are introverted functions... but Ni and Si are the ever changing relationships between events. Perhaps they are best described as the flow of things. With Ni, those things are abstract (non-physical). With Si, those things are physical (physical stimuli/changes and the physical sensations/states that result). Ni and Si are about about cause and effect relationships.

Ti and Fi are about systems, or the relationships between fixed things. Fi is the ethical relationships between fixed things. Ti is the logical relationships between fixed things. Perhaps Ti and Fi are best described as a network or structure. In order for a system to exist, there must be points in the system which are fixed so that other parts of the system may be built upon them.
But that's just it. Ti and Fi are much worse at understanding systems that already exist because they can't quickly bend themselves to understand other people's systems. Si and Ni are very quick at noticing systemacy in the world, understanding and using such systemacy for their own benefit.

Someone, (I hope it wasn't Phaedrus), mentioned that dynamics, when they play chess, have a habit of trying to understand the opponent's plan. Statics tend to have their own plan that they advance and try to overwhelm the opponent's plan through sheer power.

Your point about fixed points is excellent. But some fixed points are only temporarily fixed. If a person is involved with a few hundred systems of similar nature each day, Ti would usually use his own system to approximate something close enough and use his own system each time. Si would have to observe each system individually and do case by case work. Extremely inefficient, but far more accurate. Or, if they happened to feel like it, Si could do "whatever" to approach the same issue and just use personal experience.
You're describing two different aspects of Ti.

Let's make an example of a tractor. I'm being slightly rough myself here, but I hope you'll forgive that. Anyway, Ni would easily get the idea of how a tractor works, but not the spesifics. Ti could probably reasonably well design a tractor and figure how it must work. Fi would understand easily the purpose of the tractor and how it ought to work. Si would have to see a tractor, play with the machinery, test it and observe how it works. This kind of playing around with a system, concrete interaction with it, is in my view necessary for Si to get an internal model of how something works. So if a system is complex enough that there is no simulator and hazardous enough that it can't be played with so as to gain experience, and inaccessible enough that it's functioning can't be directly observed, then and only then is Si unable to do anything. (And then Si will use other, more indirect tools.)
Hmm... the only response I can think of is to follow your description with my own, using the same example, a tractor.

Se sees the color, size, weight, usability (is it fueled up? is it in working condition?) and horse power of the tractor. How new/old is it? How much is it worth?

Si sees how the vibration of the tractor may be uncomfortable, notices the fact that it's open will mean that it will offer no protection from the sun (so the driver may want to wear a hat and bring water), hears how loud it is when it runs and knows that the driver's ears will ring later, etc.

Ni sees how the tractor will most likely be used, thinking of the fields it will plow, the crops that will grow, the harvesting of those crops, the people who will purchase and consume them. At the same time it sees the factory the tractors was designed in, the tractor's purchase and shipping to it's owner, the probability that the owner will eventually sell it or use it for parts once it is old and no longer useful to plow or harvest crops. At the same time it sees the farm and the concept of agriculture, thinking of how we went from the agrarian age to the industrial age to the information age. It wonders what age will be next. It thinks of how farmers during the agrarian age did not have such sophisticated and efficient machinery and wonders what age will be next, and what will become of agriculture. It may also think about the seasons, and how the tractor is used for certain things at different times of the year. (Okay, I may have gotten a little carried away, but you get the idea.)

Ne sees possibilities... someone help me with this one. I understand Ne, but when I try to verbalize examples I end up going off track (ironically ).

Te sees the crops being harvested or the fields being plowed or whatever other activity is taking place. It sees the pattern in which the driver is covering the field and may come up with a more efficient method of doing so.

Ti sees... a lot of things... it's got a place in it's system for the concept of farming. It may see the science behind the way the tractor works (or would that be Ti + Ne?). It sees that the hired help will be plowing because they're subordinates (that would be Ti + Se).

Seeing the gears and motor and whatnot of the tractor would be Te + Si. Seeing the fields as futures (corn, wheat, etc.) could be Te + Ni.

This is a difficult example to work Fi and Fe into, too.

10. Te can tell you if the tractor works or if it's broken right? Since Te is about "what works"

11. (Se would actually be more likely to tell you that though... )

12. ## Re: Systems

Originally Posted by Joy
Systems are, by definition, static. If they were not, it would be impossible to build on them.
I'm not sure what definition of "system" you are referring to or what exactly you mean by saying that they must be "static". For comparison, the former nuclear physicist and current chess trainer Alexander Shashin sees chess as a complex, dynamic system based on the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm (compare Gulenko's description of "vortex thinking" here: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=14637 ), which he describes briefly in this interview: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/misha15.pdf

Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Someone, (I hope it wasn't Phaedrus), mentioned that dynamics, when they play chess, have a habit of trying to understand the opponent's plan. Statics tend to have their own plan that they advance and try to overwhelm the opponent's plan through sheer power.
I don't recall having said that. Are you referring to someone's post on the forum? Do you think that the statement is true or not?

13. Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Completely wrong to an abominable degree. The links between things are introvert functions. Si and Ni are introvert functions. Do the math and stop joking around.
QFT. Please Joy stop. Every introverted function creates a system, in his own way.

Think about any form of religion - mysticism - etc - what else are their behavioural representations (usually heavily Se based), if not mappings of a Ni system?

Now think about a car engine in motion. Think about how ISTps are thought about as being good mechanics (stereotype that I have yet to found to be opposed to reality). 2+2?

Joy - if you believe systems are exclusively static, please get an education. Or rather - just open your car and look at its engine.

14. Originally Posted by FDG
Every introverted function creates a system, in his own way.
Necessarily? Why? What is your definition of a "system" then? If you're saying that any introverted perception is a system, ok, but then you're defining it, rather than concluding it.

Si and Ni are perceptions of flows - that doesn't make them into a system as such, unless that's your definition.

Originally Posted by FDG
Think about any form of religion - mysticism - etc - what else are their behavioural representations (usually heavily Se based), if not mappings of a Ni system?
I think religion, mysticism, etc, it's actually a Ti mapping of a Ni imagery. So the system comes from Ti, not Ni. Not all religious persons are Beta, obviously, but all the major religious leaders and visionaries have been, and imo it's no coincidence. It's the quadra with the unique Ni + Ti combination.

Originally Posted by FDG
Now think about a car engine in motion. Think about how ISTps are thought about as being good mechanics (stereotype that I have yet to found to be opposed to reality). 2+2?
ISTps are indeed very often good mechanics, as are quite a few ISFps, by the way. But I don't think it means that Si as such is any "system". If that were so, then ISTps would also be stereotyped as good engineers - which some of them are, but so are many ENTjs and INTjs, with far less Si. What makes ISTps and ISFps good mechanics is the natural inclination to focus on the physical reality in front of them.

15. Originally Posted by Expat
Si and Ni are perceptions of flows - that doesn't make them into a system as such
Are you saying people have no understanding of their perceptions? Perception is all about context. It is unavoidable to create a coherent (Internally) picture of reality through perception if you are sane.

16. Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Are you saying people have no understanding of their perceptions? Perception is all about context. It is unavoidable to create a coherent (Internally) picture of reality if you are sane.
Does anyone use only Si or Ni?

17. Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Are you saying people have no understanding of their perceptions? Perception is all about context. It is unavoidable to create a coherent (Internally) picture of reality if you are sane.
Does anyone use only Si or Ni?
So you are saying that one is nothing more then a vegetable and a heap of instincts if one is using just perceiving functions?

18. Si and Ni are perceptions of flows - that doesn't make them into a system as such, unless that's your definition.

MMM. Take for example the basic model of economic flux, that in its most primitive way describes how money is given to workers in exchange for labor, which in turn acquire the goods they produce with labor via the money obtained etc.

That is indeed a flow. It's also indeed a system, in every way the usual word "system" is thought of. What do you think? Did I convince you?

19. Originally Posted by FDG
Si and Ni are perceptions of flows - that doesn't make them into a system as such, unless that's your definition.

MMM. Take for example the basic model of economic flux, that in its most primitive way describes how money is given to workers in exchange for labor, which in turn acquire the goods they produce with labor via the money obtained etc.

That is indeed a flow. It's also indeed a system, in every way the usual word "system" is thought of. What do you think? Did I convince you?
It is not so much that these perceptions are "systems" unto themselves, but they are paired with a rational function which seeks to make sense of this perception. Ni and Si are not systems, but the perception of dynamic Extraverted systems of reality (Te and Fe), but even then, they often seek out a complementary system, either Ti or Fi depending, to reinforce the perception.

20. Originally Posted by ifmd95
FDG: "neither necessary nor sufficient" (as i argued in the other thread.)

for example in this context isn't a flow just something which modifies a stock? (wealth, capital, etc.) it's pretty easy to understand the flows without understanding any economic model/system in particular. (most liberal arts students for example lol..)
yeah i agree, but why would it be different?

Also, I was referring to both Si and Ni; and, I wasn't trying to prove that they exclusively deal with system, but rather that there is such a thing as a system built upon Si or Ni

21. Originally Posted by ifmd95
Originally Posted by FDG
As usual Smilingeyes is perfectly right
maybe i am interpretting the intended scope of this too broadly..
He didn't say that only Si creates systems, either, just that Si types create systems with Si.

22. Originally Posted by snegledmaca
So you are saying that one is nothing more then a vegetable and a heap of instincts if one is using just perceiving functions?
Something like it.

Nobody uses only any one function at any time, not the way I understand them, and I think it makes sense. I think anyone who'd use only one function belongs in a lunatic asylum.

23. Originally Posted by Logos
It is not so much that these perceptions are "systems" unto themselves, but they are paired with a rational function which seeks to make sense of this perception. Ni and Si are not systems, but the perception of dynamic Extraverted systems of reality (Te and Fe), but even then, they often seek out a complementary system, either Ti or Fi depending, to reinforce the perception.
That's pretty much the way I see it.

24. Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
So you are saying that one is nothing more then a vegetable and a heap of instincts if one is using just perceiving functions?
Something like it.
Hmm, let me rephrase, are you claiming that for understanding rationality is required?

25. Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
So you are saying that one is nothing more then a vegetable and a heap of instincts if one is using just perceiving functions?
Something like it.
Hmm, let me rephrase, are you claiming that for understanding rationality is required?
Understanding =! System

26. Originally Posted by Logos
Understanding =! System
Understanding == System

27. Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by Logos
Understanding =! System
Understanding == System
Why?

28. Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by snegledmaca

Understanding == System
Why?
Because understanding is complex.

29. Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by snegledmaca

Understanding == System
Why?
Because understanding is complex.
How so? And does complex necessarily mean or equate to a system?

30. Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by snegledmaca

Understanding == System
Why?
Because understanding is complex.
How so? And does complex necessarily mean or equate to a system?
Originally Posted by hkkmr
What?

Systems are simple tho... if understanding is complex and systems are simple.. then how are they equal.
Complex as in multistructured, possessing structure. And because it is composed of elements it's a structured set of elements. It's a system.

[spoil:c16c1faa44]Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sys·tem /ˈsɪstəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sis-tuhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.
2. any assemblage or set of correlated members: a system of currency; a system of shorthand characters.
3. an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought: a system of philosophy.
4. a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government.
5. any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge.
6. due method or orderly manner of arrangement or procedure: There is no system in his work.
7. the world or universe.
8. Astronomy.
a. a number of heavenly bodies associated and acting together according to certain natural laws: the solar system.
b. a hypothesis or theory of the disposition and arrangements of the heavenly bodies by which their phenomena, motions, changes, etc., are explained: the Ptolemaic system; the Copernican system.
9. Biology.
a. an assemblage of organs or related tissues concerned with the same function: the nervous system; the digestive system.
b. the entire human or animal body considered as a functioning unit: an ingredient toxic to the system.
10. one's psychological makeup, esp. with reference to desires or preoccupations: to get something out of one's system.
11. a method or scheme of classification: the Linnean system of plants.
12. (sometimes initial capital letter) the prevailing structure or organization of society, business, or politics or of society in general; establishment (usually prec. by the): to work within the system instead of trying to change it.
13. Geology. a major division of rocks comprising sedimentary deposits and igneous masses formed during a single geologic period.
14. Physical Chemistry. a combination of two or more phases, as a binary system, each of which consists of one or more substances, that is attaining or is in equilibrium.
15. Computers. a working combination of hardware, software, and data communications devices.
16. Checkers. either of the two groups of 16 playing squares on four alternate columns.[/spoil:c16c1faa44]

31. Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by snegledmaca

Understanding == System
Why?
Because understanding is complex.
How so? And does complex necessarily mean or equate to a system?
Originally Posted by hkkmr
What?

Systems are simple tho... if understanding is complex and systems are simple.. then how are they equal.
Complex as in multistructured, possessing structure. And because it is composed of elements it's a structured set of elements. It's a system.
But what structure does a perceiving function have unless it has been given structure by a rational function? Ni and Si perceive but do not form systems.

32. Originally Posted by Logos
But what structure does a perceiving function have unless it has been given structure by a rational function?
There is no need to implement structure as the information naturally posses it.

EDIT: The difference is that you manipulate the structure indirectly through altering the ways in which you perceive.

33. Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by Logos
But what structure does a perceiving function have unless it has been given structure by a rational function?
There is no need to implement structure as the information naturally posses it. You create structure through altering the ways in which you perceive.
Then it is not a system, but the perception of a system.

34. Edited my post above. You can manipulate structure, build systems, through awareness of perception (Or altering one's perception willfully).

Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by Logos
But what structure does a perceiving function have unless it has been given structure by a rational function?
There is no need to implement structure as the information naturally posses it. You create structure through altering the ways in which you perceive.
Then it is not a system, but the perception of a system.
Structure. It naturally posses structure. It's perception of structure. From which, through altering perception, we can build systems.

35. Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Edited my post above. You can manipulate structure, build systems, through awareness of perception (Or altering one's perception willfully).
Why would the structure change just because you look at it differently or just by being aware of the perception? If I exchange a pair of green-tinted glasses for rose-tinted glasses, the perception changes but the structure of what I am perceiving does not change.

36. Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Edited my post above. You can manipulate structure, build systems, through awareness of perception (Or altering one's perception willfully).
Why would the structure change just because you look at it differently or just by being aware of the perception?
Through altering perception you get to see new objects. Ok, this is how it goes, the only difference between systems built through perception and rationality is that in rationality you build the pieces while in perception the pieces already exist. In rationality the puzzle is manufactured. In perception you have to go and look for it. That is why through altering perception you "manipulate" structure. In reality you are just finding new pieces, but effectively you are "manipulating the structure" of the same piece.

37. Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Ok, this is how it goes, the only difference between systems built through perception and rationality is that in rationality you build the pieces while in perception the pieces already exist.
Ok.

Originally Posted by snegledmaca
In rationality the puzzle is manufactured. In perception you have to go and look for it. That is why through altering perception you "manipulate" structure. In reality you are just finding new pieces, but effectively you are "manipulating the structure" of the same piece.
I think I get what you mean.

Anyway, to me the point is not that Si or Ni could not perceive, or be associated with, structures; the point was that some people seem to be claiming that any introverted function, in isolation, creates systems. I find this questionable, and downright absurd the notion that Si is uniquely connected to structures.

38. Originally Posted by Expat
Anyway, to me the point is not that Si or Ni could not perceive, or be associated with, structures; the point was that some people seem to be claiming that any introverted function, in isolation, creates systems. I find this questionable, and downright absurd the notion that Si is uniquely connected to structures.
Well it is plausible, if not mandatory, if we assume reality itself to be structured. Then through simply perceiving it would be uniquely connected to structures/(Aspects of reality). But that's just technically, not effectively, which I presume is what you are trying to say. That they don't effectively build systems. Ok, with an introvert function you have to necessarily be aware of all the interconnections between things, because they are observing fields, which is another name for interconnections between things, and these interconnections form a system. In essence introvert functions are working *in* a system so it is quite necessary that systems and structure are associated with them and are what they produce. You can only explain interconnections through a system.

For Si this is the system of how things work/complement each other concretely. This goes with his, that doesn't go with that, put that bracket there, Why? Because it complements the other parts, and so on. Like smilingeyes said, after filing tax payment for years you get a feel for what needs to be done, for how to do it. That's a Si system. When you just know what need to be done and how.

IMO that is. I'm not entirely sure if this is true. But it's my current understanding of it.

39. Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by Expat
Anyway, to me the point is not that Si or Ni could not perceive, or be associated with, structures; the point was that some people seem to be claiming that any introverted function, in isolation, creates systems. I find this questionable, and downright absurd the notion that Si is uniquely connected to structures.
Well it is plausible, if not mandatory, if we assume reality itself to be structured. Then through simply perceiving it would be uniquely connected to structures/(Aspects of reality). But that's just technically, not effectively, which I presume is what you are trying to say. That they don't effectively build systems. Ok, with an introvert function you have to necessarily be aware of all the interconnections between things, because they are observing fields, which is another name for interconnections between things, and these interconnections form a system. In essence introvert functions are working *in* a system so it is quite necessary that systems and structure are associated with them and are what they produce. You can only explain interconnections through a system.

For Si this is the system of how things work/complement each other concretely. This goes with his, that doesn't go with that, put that bracket there, Why? Because it complements the other parts, and so on. Like smilingeyes said, after filing tax payment for years you get a feel for what needs to be done, for how to do it. That's a Si system. When you just know what need to be done and how.

IMO that is. I'm not entirely sure if this is true. But it's my current understanding of it.
But again, you are essentially just describing the perception of a system and not the formation of a system.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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