Ti and Te Functional Description Thesocioncom

[Hitta]

Introverted Thinking(Static, External, Fields, Judging)

Introverted Thinking is the function that determines how we look at systems and their parts. Whether or not we look at a system as a whole or as a combination of their parts is dependent on the Introverted Thinking functions.


All functions are divided into +/- divisions due to how they manifest in each type.

+ Introverted Thinking: Organization, systematizing, classifying, placing laws, following laws, creating hierachies, structuring, if-then logic, cause and effect logic, implicative logic, being able to see what a action will cause, creating structured systems, wholism, seeing systems as a whole and not of parts

-Introverted Thinking: Disorganizing, analyzing, breaking things apart and understanding the internal workings, breaking apart hierachies, disjunctive logic, anarchy, or-or logic, desystematics, reductionism, breaking apart laws, reductionism, seeing systems as a combination of its parts.
[hr:b8ca36b8ee]

Extraverted Thinking( Dynamic, External, Objects, Judging)

Extraverted Thinking is consistent of how we process our ideas in society. How we choose to make our projects work and how we advance our concepts is what comprises Extraverted Thinking. It is alway how we position the contents of the external world.


All functions are divided into +/- divisions due to how they manifest in each type.

+ Extraverted Thinking: ensuring productivity, being ecomonmical, steady progression, careful maintenance, to "get more for your buck", doing as little work as possible to achieve the proper results, seeing the beneficial qualities in something, profitability, accumulation, savings.

-Extraverted Thinking: removing unproductive features, being risky, sharp progression, risky maintenance, performing hard "brute" work, being able to perform well in chaotic situations, clutch performances, expenditure, ingenuity, chaotic trading, experimentation, removing budget, removing costs.

[tcaudilllg]

The definition is too vague. "Rules and opportunities for exchange" is more direct.

"steady progression" of what?

This is -far- too general. You're literally dancing around dualtype theory as though it's a taboo zone with this.

The problem is this: people can't use the "myriad manifestations" approach because they have no reason to respect, for example, a manifestation of that they are not inclined to believe important as just "extroverted thinking". Saying "it's only a model" only gets you so far.

[Joy]

The definition is too vague. "Rules and opportunities for exchange" is more direct.

How does that work?

[tcaudilllg]

link to dualtype theory:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...al-type_theory

If you can't communicate with somebody you sure as hell can't do business with them. "profit" is impossible to define abstractly, let alone simply.

[Hitta]

link to dualtype theory:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...al-type_theory

If you can't communicate with somebody you sure as hell can't do business with them. "profit" is impossible to define abstractly, let alone simply.

Um, what I am stating has nothing to do with dual type theory. +/- definitions have been defined by Gulenko many times (though he tends to come to different results). How exactly am I dancing around dualtype theory. What I am attempting to state has nothing to do with dual type theory. What I am stating is a necessity, a must. Functions have to have a extraverted element to connect to the outside world. The + aspect of Te has been defined before. My definition and Gulenko's definition is very similar. I will probably eventually revise my Te definitions because I feel like they aren't exactly where I want them to be. Nonetheless, Gulenko defined them exactly as I have defined them now, as has many other socionists. I'm in thought about Te right now, and I have some ideas, but there is still some more thinking to be done.

Also by "profit", it is meant that one is able to see how something will be beneficial.

[Creepy-bg]

Tcaud thinks everything is about dualtype theory.... he's a bit paranoid/delusional like that. Thinks the whole world is out to steal his idea. I wouldn't worry about it

[Hitta]

Tcaud thinks everything is about dualtype theory.... he's a bit paranoid/delusional like that. Thinks the whole world is out to steal his idea. I wouldn't worry about it

lol, yea heh, but my Te descriptions do need a tad bit of work, funny thing also is that Gulenko already has talked about dual type theory before Tcaud.

[Creepy-bg]

Tcaud thinks everything is about dualtype theory.... he's a bit paranoid/delusional like that. Thinks the whole world is out to steal his idea. I wouldn't worry about it

lol, yea heh, but my Te descriptions do need a tad bit of work, funny thing also is that Gulenko already has talked about dual type theory before Tcaud.

duck and cover dude!

[Hitta]

Tcaud thinks everything is about dualtype theory.... he's a bit paranoid/delusional like that. Thinks the whole world is out to steal his idea. I wouldn't worry about it

lol, yea heh, but my Te descriptions do need a tad bit of work, funny thing also is that Gulenko already has talked about dual type theory before Tcaud.

duck and cover dude!

I'm gonna hide in my bathtub.

[tcaudilllg]

I knew you'd make that point someday.

You know what? The world will never know, because there was an attack on this board in early 2007 that eliminated my earliest public
considerations of the dual-types.

Technically, one could affirm via internet site records (if they exist) that it was extremely improbable that I could have seen Gulenko's Dec 17th article before publishing my own research here. The article itself has been editing heavily since its original posting, as a thorough investigation would reveal.

I settled on considering the "crossed" elements seperately in early December; but it wasn't until later in the month that I realized that IM elements could be expressed in different forms. ( could be followed by , for example) This was the "jump" that distinguished dual-type theory from crosstype theory: before this realization, there was no pretext for believing that there was an "exertion" type apart from the metabolism type.

Finally, you're failing to appreciate the intricacy of the socion. If only you truely understood the full significance of the relationships of to , and of to , you would realize that such claims are quite obsolete given the evidence available. You may have heard of the
"noosphere" concept, of which all adult INTjs are quite aware exists. The directions of thought are organized in massive parallelisms denying all physical boundaries. Awarding a single person credit for a theory of the socion fails to appreciate the depth of the theory's own ultimate implications.

Yes, that recognized idiot BionicGoat can glorify his ignorance, (he doesn't realize he's the REAL butt of his jokes!) but nothing he says changes the reality in front of him or others. The socion is more than what that institute in Kiev says it is.

That said, I would like to refer you, hitta, to a set of articles in the Institute's journal that explore what it means to live in the fractal psychology implied by socionisc. They are quite illuminating.

[Creepy-bg]

I knew you'd make that point someday.

You know what? The world will never know, because there was an attack on this board in early 2007 that eliminated my earliest public
considerations of the dual-types.

Technically, one could affirm via internet site records (if they exist) that it was extremely improbable that I could have seen Gulenko's Dec 17th article before publishing my own research here. The article itself has been editing heavily since its original posting, as a thorough investigation would reveal.

I settled on considering the "crossed" elements seperately in early December; but it wasn't until later in the month that I realized that IM elements could be expressed in different forms. ( could be followed by , for example) This was the "jump" that distinguished dual-type theory from crosstype theory: before this realization, there was no pretext for believing that there was an "exertion" type apart from the metabolism type.

Finally, you're failing to appreciate the intricacy of the socion. If only you truely understood the full significance of the relationships of to , and of to , you would realize that such claims are quite obsolete given the evidence available. You may have heard of the
"noosphere" concept, of which all adult INTjs are quite aware exists. The directions of thought are organized in massive parallelisms denying all physical boundaries. Awarding a single person credit for a theory of the socion fails to appreciate the depth of the theory's own ultimate implications.

Yes, that recognized idiot BionicGoat can glorify his ignorance, (he doesn't realize he's the REAL butt of his jokes!) but nothing he says changes the reality in front of him or others. The socion is more than what that institute in Kiev says it is.

That said, I would like to refer you, hitta, to a set of articles in the Institute's journal that explore what it means to live in the fractal psychology implied by socionisc. They are quite illuminating.

no u!

[Not A Communist Shill]

Bionicgoat - officially a 'recognised idiot'!

[Creepy-bg]