Smilexian socionics: random material relating to dichotomies

[Smilingeyes]

This material continuation of personal pondering, further motivated by Gulenko.

The dichotomy I personally find easiest to notice and get a lock on is positive-negative. It holds the same issues as all small-cycle dichotomies. It's very volatile. On the other hand it is easy to identify, observe, understand and analyze.

Gulenko supplied the descriptions of positive-process and related groups.

Remaining within the small-cycle dichotomies, I pick

Negative Taciturn (Rational)

Here, rational is used as control dichotomy. Result of algorithm must not contradict rationality.

Description of Negative, as before.

Taciturn:

Starting with one or more specific objects of thought and looking for links/connections/relations between them.


Combined ->

Taciturn-negative, which I shall here dub Sample-analytical thinking.

Taciturn negative is taking a set number of points of information and deriving of knowledge that can be deducted from them. It is the essence of the quality why INTj is called the analyst as the INTj has this quality within the "intellectual club" NT. You let an INTj observe a matter and he will try to analyze all the information he caught. The limits of the issue being hir ability to make correct observations and on the other hand the ability to perform the analysis correctly, to combine the information in ways that are truly derived only from the observed sample. I'd expect the existence of various personally learned techniques to connect information in these ways, to sort it, rate it and so on.

Sample-analytical thinking must start by believing in the given information. Some parts of the information are easily combined, they may seem more relevant, or more weight can be given to the outliers. As it becomes more and more difficult to combine information, the explanations and connections derived become more tortuous, more strange, more likely to fail.

Example.

John, Jack and Jonathan.

Link: All start with J. But also...
Link: Names derived from the Bible.
Link: Male names.
Link: Words appearing in above list.
Link: Names my third grade teacher happened to use of individual pupils while not using their given names.
etc.

All the above links are true. If we add more names to the list we would get a smaller list of true information but we might remember ways to connect them that we haven't thought of or thought of as important before.

There are two parts to the analysis: The extrovert part is the fixation on the problem, the giving of importance to specific pieces of information. The introvert part is the act of trivializing the information by turning it into groups. Subtype difference: is a person talking about a problem, or performing the best s/he can to solve it.

Cons: too much or too little importance is given to particular relations. The results are only as good as the original data set. New material that can not be linked to within the same system forces a rethinking of the system or the discarding of the new material.

Pros: When correctly performed, this way of thinking is extremely reliable. It works well with constrictions and limits. The end result is supposed to be a reliable understanding of how something works.

Habits: The strict "No", often followed by a period of thinking and trying to unite a new issue with existing understanding/system/process. Habit of trying to "completely solve" problems by offering solutions that turn the problem trivial. Development of reliable problem-solving techniques. Seeking personal expertise over an issue. Habit of trying to conquer specific limitations.

Interesting points one needs to ponder: ISFj and ENFj as analytical thinkers is weakly understood. First of all, comparison of ISFj with INTj. Se is more defined starting information than Ne is. It is more difficult to go wrong starting with Se traits than it is with Ne traits. The process of solving practical Se problems is often trivial, mechanical and the problem becomes one of finding an ethically acceptable solution, one that is true to the person hirself and hir relations to others. Social analysis of one's personal role by deduction. Interesting concept, explaining quite well the habits of ISFjs to confine themselves into little appreciated roles. A seeking of an universally acceptable form of behaviour?

ENFj? Ethical/humanist/religious analysis. Starting with a set of individual not-well-defined social pieces of information and trying to find a complete solution to these? Seems cryptic. The answers tend to be a sort of understanding of the universal connection between things in a vague, religious-sounding way (that does not have to in its essence be religious). In essence, the answer is simply as vague as the starting information.

More interesting points: ENFj = NF = not-well-defined. Turns vague information into another sort of vague information.
ESTj = ST = well-defined. Turns strict information into another sort of strict information.
INTj = NT = Socially-closed. Turns vague information into strict information. Event takes places with little interaction, focus on the person. Addition of clarity.
ISFj = SF = Socially open. Turns strict information into vague information. Event takes place with maximum interaction. Loss of clarity.

Important to note: Addition of clarity to information occurs within the deductive process. There's no addition of information within the INTj's action, there's a transformative decision.
Similarly for ISFj. The ESTj and ENFj on the other hand are more like filters of information, pure parametric-algorithmic analysts. This-> therefore. The process is more directly run by the data, less so by themselves. A more correct process, but with less important results (socionics joke).

Is the above in conflict with the descriptions of rationality? Not to my understanding. Thereby the description above could be inverted and used to add understanding to the essence of rationality, with the standard caveats of limited accuracy of any description.

...

Second group

Negative-narrator (irrational)...

Have trouble finding good name for the group. Personally unable to experience the connection directly so all information theoretical/inductive...

Starts with the general knowledge of what kind of things are linked/related/connected and proceeds within those limits by deduction to individual actions.

...More analysis to follow...

[FDG]

Very easy to determine type if you reduce via

Negative-Positive

then

IJ EJ EP IP

then

SF ST NF NT

[Smilingeyes]

Second group

Negative-narrator (irrational)...

Have trouble finding good name for the group. Personally unable to experience the connection directly so all information theoretical/inductive...

Starts with the general knowledge of what kind of things are linked/related/connected and proceeds within those limits by deduction to individual actions.

By definition, this is amongst other things everything that is deductive, that is not analytic. To retain the previous denotation, I would call it deductive synthesis. The first part of this activity would be a strict adherence to something that is generally known, routine, the way things happen, systematic, normal procedure. The beginning is a binding network of relations, meanings, links and interconnections. They are either seen as necessary, important, safe and good or as unfair, constrictive and unacceptable. If the latter, the synthesis continues and an answer is sought, the links and relations are followed to a terminus, an act or an answer that breaks the system is sought after and ways to fulfill/break the routine and create release are tried until success is gained. Until the previous status quo is broken and one can start building from scratch.

The implication is that the consistency and systemacy, which, when observed, rationals find liberating and exhilarating, is to irrationals itself a prison. If a matter is completely solved, it becomes constrictive. If one relies on a tool one becomes its tool oneself.

By this way of thought the INTp observes everything around hir and proceeds to find a way to tie together everything s/he has seen into compact packages of ascertained knowledge. Likewise the ESTp would seek individual actions that express the totality of their knowledge of a situation, single actions that crucially define and thereby break a system.

So the implications for ISFps and ENFps?

The ISFp would start with a concrete routine of actions, their standard, best way of doing something, and turn that into what? Good will? Friends? Experiences? Learning of something vague. A genuine emotional state? Of all the deductive synthesists their system with which they start is the most concrete, the most observable, the most natural. Also the most trivial, the most short-sighted of the forms of systems. How does one destroy a practical routine? By running it through, not usually, usually such can be redone ad nauseam. ISFps are experience-seeking, company-seeking... Perhaps an Si system can simply break by leaving it behind? Or by disempowerment. Ti claims a new way to do things which is different from the ISFps experience, the ISFp being bound to a particular way of doing things, would leave behind hir understanding and just follow hir trust on the new phenomenon? Perhaps... I think it can be within definitions anything. An ultimate high, a new best friend, love, any experience which has such ramifications that can not be fully understood, something that makes the ISFp simply let go of hir personal limitations.

How about the ENFp? The starting system is ethical/social, vague, indescribable and personal though interactive with others. A very labile and tumultous system. Full of conflicting emotions. It seems to break with an idea, a moment of fundamental clarity about an issue. A personal revelation of sorts, something not powerful in and of itself, but something alluring. It seems to be a way to nullify the importance of the society, of generally accepted information, of removing oneself from others first by demoting oneself and thereafter by noticing how one's differences have potential.

This kind of thinking is not easily mislead, it sticks to standard ways or deviations thereof that they pick themselves. Very reliable under standard circumstances but unable to handle something that is completely new and foreign to its world, something that has no relation to what it is accustomed to understand. It will handle such occurrences as if they were something else entirely and do so with conviction.

The above is not substantially in contrast with the definition of irrationality.

What is interesting though is: rationals are liberated by their routines and systems. They don't exactly follow them the same way each time, by defining them themselves, they are free to constantly mold them. It is actually irrationals that see routines as the most strict and follow them most strictly, that is, when they choose to submit to them. They can understand these systems, use them, benefit of them and believe in them, but not freely mold them as they see the systems as strict, their vision is also brittle, ripe for breaking.

[aestrivex]

i think the issue of chottle is not sufficiently addressed by these explanations.

[krieger]

Another intesting addition to the smilex legacy.

I was wondering about your interpretation of the limiting/empowering dichotomy.

I usually interpret empowering as: arbitrary, the product of choice, one option out of many, speculation, risk of being wrong.

In my views, a positivism is a person who is invested in something arbitrary; something capable of being taken away or destroyed.

What are your views on this?

[mm]

What is interesting though is: rationals are liberated by their routines and systems. They don't exactly follow them the same way each time, by defining them themselves, they are free to constantly mold them. It is actually irrationals that see routines as the most strict and follow them most strictly, that is, when they choose to submit to them. They can understand these systems, use them, benefit of them and believe in them, but not freely mold them as they see the systems as strict, their vision is also brittle, ripe for breaking.

I've been thinking about this paragraph all day, and I think the flaw in it is that you're giving a rational interpretation to "routine" and "system". A rational type seems to understand and reason about a system using a conceptual and formal representation of it, and I'm indeed not good at molding such a representation directly. As an irrational type I would say I understand and reason about a system by "perceiving" and molding a spatio-temporal representation of it. I understand a system when I know where every subsystem is located relative to other systems, how everything affects everything else and where events are located in time. I think you can actually see that in my hand and eye movements when explaining something, although I'm not literally seeing anything in front of me or something. There's just an awareness or a sense of relative positions and distances between ideas, even abstract ones. And the whole thing is pretty dynamic too, can be changed at will, is dependent on context etc.

So yes, I agree with you when you say irrationals see (rational) routines as most strict. For instance, when some routine fails, I tend to want to get rid of it entirely or would want to (aggressively) cut parts out instead of embracing it and molding it into something better. The thing is that the reverse seems true for rational types. In some other thread I think it was snegledmaca who mentioned that irrationals reason by altering their perception and then the general response of rational types was that perception is something that's fixed and that it didn't make much sense to alter your perception of something. Rational types don't seem to separate perception from the real thing, which would be prone to error if it weren't for their rationality backing them up. So IMHO both types can reason about pretty complex systems and I wouldn't call either type's vision brittle really.

[Smilingeyes]

@labcoat:

True. Not the particular way I'd use to say it but definitely a message I agree with.

I think the flaw in it is that you're giving a rational interpretation to "routine" and "system".

It's not a flaw, it's a feature I'm rational. I can't give it the meaning an irrational would. But I'm extremely interested in the irrational pov of the same matter and so I'm very happy to read your message.

As an irrational type I would say I understand and reason about a system by "perceiving" and molding a spatio-temporal representation of it. I understand a system when I know where every subsystem is located relative to other systems, how everything affects everything else and where events are located in time. I think you can actually see that in my hand and eye movements when explaining something, although I'm not literally seeing anything in front of me or something. There's just an awareness or a sense of relative positions and distances between ideas, even abstract ones. And the whole thing is pretty dynamic too, can be changed at will, is dependent on context etc.

May I use this quote as an example of this phenomenon?

So yes, I agree with you when you say irrationals see (rational) routines as most strict. For instance, when some routine fails, I tend to want to get rid of it entirely or would want to (aggressively) cut parts out instead of embracing it and molding it into something better. The thing is that the reverse seems true for rational types. In some other thread I think it was snegledmaca who mentioned that irrationals reason by altering their perception and then the general response of rational types was that perception is something that's fixed and that it didn't make much sense to alter your perception of something. Rational types don't seem to separate perception from the real thing, which would be prone to error if it weren't for their rationality backing them up. So IMHO both types can reason about pretty complex systems and I wouldn't call either type's vision brittle really.

I think there's a problem of interpretation here. First, the bolded part is exactly what I meant by the use of the word brittle. That the system will break rather than bend. Second, I think you might be only using IJ types as a comparison here since I definitely change my perceptions plenty. Though in another context I might claim that I don't but that would probably be an attempt to sound more sure about something than I am. Maybe. Perhaps. I guess.

[Smilingeyes]

I tried to do positive-taciturn next but I failed. I kept comparing it to unwritten material.

So here's positive narrator first:

Inductive synthesis, well, sort of.
The art of taking a general sense of how things work and extrapolating from that how things could be caused to work or how things are likely to work.

Starts with enabling introversion, a strong sense of their understanding of a system, their position in relation to other objects and how they interact. The focus is on the observation, intactness of the system, a passive, withdrawn state. Knowledge of this system allows the person to assume things of which s/he has no direct experience. From this they proceed to extroversion, to test what their model, their system, their understanding is capable of, what they cause to happen with their understanding, what are the extremes to which simply following their understanding can take them. It may be thought of as an exploration of a mental map. As long as the map is true, they can do whatever they want within it.

This group gives to me the external image of being drunk of their general understanding. A sort of general egoism that doesn't seem to be based on anything in particular (since the property is introvert and can't be shown). I feel I can give a conceptual example of how this self-assuredness forms in the case of the ESTj vs. the ESFj.

Back when I was just a kid, maybe 10 yrs old, I felt I was good for nothing and hence tried my best at everything, quite often surprising myself with how well things turned out. I started with the basic premise: I can't do a thing. Or to be more correct, I had a long mental list of particular things I couldn't do (Te-limiting). I proved this premiss wrong time and again, turning the list shorter and shorter until there was basically nothing left. Within conceptual logic the idea was: Premiss: I can't do x. The premiss is wrong for a given set x=y in which it has been proven wrong. When the set y approaches the set of all imaginable things I can do anything I can imagine. So ... at some point I started to feel I could do anything. And so emerged ESFj.

On a social level these people seem to have capabilities that are little understood by others, they sometimes seem to have unmatched grace and wondrous precognition, other times they seem to be completely clueless and impossible to influence. They take their cues from their system and when in trouble, rather than follow others, they will try to fix their system.

The extrovert activity of this group is speculative, applications uncertain, a habit of testing the waters. These tests may have start with little force but it's common that they will not budge easily with resistance and they'll probably increase intensity, the motivation being something internal. The quickest way to get rid of their incentive seems to be to give them what they want and show that it's not a good thing. Naturally this is still not the best answer in all situations. And may not be a permanent solution as they may end up repeating their errors.

The ENTj is known for their ability to give independent, quick and surprisingly deep analyses of almost anything. The opinion they use tend toward the truisms, towards banality, the simple, expedient, vague and general solutions and suggestions. The power of this habit is the ability to say aloud what is on some level evident to all and make it seem important. Synthetic positive general observation. The intent of creating as much good information as possible from a functioning system of vague perceptions.

For the ISTj the system is a logical system. It is not the observation of a system but a system previously created from data from individual acts of perception. It is a personal, strict and powerful way to order one's activities toward a singular purpose. Within the phase of synthesis it leads to strong individual actions that support the original plan, the original idea.

For the ESFj it is a practical system, a system of experience, of how to act and produce success within each action, the idea of perfect action. It is used to define oneself and to create things that can be only achieved by perfect action. Competitive but mainly with themselves. Showing off to others.

For the INFj a social system, the ability to maintain an internal world despite anything that happens in the outside, used to gain ideas and concepts and perceptions that don't exist anywhere else. Personally fulfilling and great fuel for art, social activities, and source material for further intellectual development (by self or others).

On a more general level the IJ is about possessing a more personal system. An example of what a certain INFj said to me about this matter is: I don't have to know about how the world functions. I know how I function. They use their synthetic ability inward as a way to channel themselves while the EJ uses the same synthetic ability outwards toward observable systemacy.

[Smilingeyes]

The last part would be taciturn positive.
This is perhaps the hardest for me personally to understand and it exists in my mind mostly as a necessary phenomenon.

If the previous group believed themselves generally capable, this group believes themselves spesifically capable. Having broken the system these people start with the power of separate, individual actions that they may orient toward whatever purpose they strive for at any given moment. Given enought time these seemingly random actions create through internal and external incentives and factors a new kind of systemacy that at first allows the person to reach new depths and experiences with their actions but threatens to envelop them again in the burial shroud of routine.

To do something, and to proceed to happily test how this action relates to a bigger context. To build meaning for a thing. To create relations by linking an issue to others one by one. There's a sense of happy irresponsibility sometimes involved, since a deed is eagerly done without understanding the context. The deed leads to the context and is commonly meant for a particular context but often unwished for relations and meanings for the action appear. There's a surge of good feeling when there's a positive result and negative results are actively ignored.

When IPs do the above (result) they do it in an off-hand kind of sloppy-seeming way, often as a joke, a remark of personal color or similar. EPs (process) OTOH may really push and consistently seek opportunities to express themselves in the particular way they perceive as theirs. And they may go far in pushing for the acceptance of their specific habits. Strong advocation of personal choices.

I discussed this property with my ESFp ex. Her first instinct was to deny it and say that she does too think of the context of her actions. I explained to her how this is not the totality of her behaviour but a part of it. That her actions that are based on concrete Ti or Fi are simply categorized as acting ESTp or ENFp. But there nevertheless are certain times when she acts first and tries to make the most of the action later. She wanted an example. I gave her one, baking. She loves baking to a strange extent. It's partly an old habit but partly not, she's gained weight recently. She bakes though she doesn't actually want to eat everything she's baked and there's not really anyone else to push her bakings on so she tries to make me eat the goodies. I've repeatedly explained that I don't really consider this a good thing though I do often have a bite. She keeps trying to force food on me. The habit of baking is primary, what follows is an attempt to find a meaning for it and though the matter is detrimental to her health, economy and relations she still continues it.

So... How do we see this in the intellectual sphere? Another example... I recently wrote a certain piece of scientific literature that handled the diagnosis of certain diseases and techniques related to the process. The expert who was supposed to evaluate my work was an ENTp. The normal role such an evaluator is supposed to have is to appraise whether the work is well done, whether there are obvious mistakes, whether the work is worthy to be published and generally just give an answer along the lines of yea, nay or yea if certain corrections are made. This particular person somehow got the idea from my work that it handled primarily the optical properties of certain substances (something which was certainly a part of it, but only a part of it). He got excited and tried to explain to me how important such a work on optics would be and demanded a lot of new information from me. Now let's see what happened. There was a ready-made article about matter A. The person got a different idea and wanted to throw the whole original article away for the sake of creating a whole new creation based on his personal idea about matter B. The contents of the original article he only used in his appraisal as support for his own idea and as a critique for the original idea. I actually received a phone call from him in which he spent an hour explaining all the good qualities of why and how the new idea B was superior. Fact is, for the most part he was completely correct, his idea B was superior to the original idea A and all the reasons he gave were good and well thought out. He was very convincing and impressive. As it happened, in that case the idea A still won out in the end for practical reasons, the primary reason being that a complete study had already been made of it whereas B was just an idea.

ENTp is about being convinced of a good idea and trying to find ways to convince others of it as well. To connect the idea with other ideas in a logical manner.

On a practical level, the ISTp similarly starts with clear logical knowledge, and tries to look for an application for it. To know something will work and then try to show it in practice. When doing the correct thing, one requires little skill in application, one is able to be carefree. Contrast this with ESTj habit of assuming that what they're doing is impossible and trying to prove themselves wrong, a course that would be seen as most perilous.

On the social level, the ESFp is easily understood from the earlier. Starting with action and then trying to explain it as "I did for the good of x." Pleading for acceptance. Very heartwarming.

Finally INFp, the ideological form of the above. Starting with the assumption of a personal vague social idea and proceeding with an attempt to understand its larger context. Again, as an example the Obama campaign and era of new hope in politics.

I apologize for the way that came out. Too negative seeming. The obvious good side of this habit is to mobilize support for a cause. Such an idea tends to have staying power because the person using this form of thinking really believes in it. Standing behind one's words while still remaining upbeat, creative, adaptable (in comparison with the more dour rational taciturns.) Please notice that since this is a matter of guided forming of links, a great many of the relations that appear through this form of behaviour are not found per se but caused and created by the person's actions.

[mm]

As an irrational type I would say I understand and reason about a system by "perceiving" and molding a spatio-temporal representation of it. I understand a system when I know where every subsystem is located relative to other systems, how everything affects everything else and where events are located in time. I think you can actually see that in my hand and eye movements when explaining something, although I'm not literally seeing anything in front of me or something. There's just an awareness or a sense of relative positions and distances between ideas, even abstract ones. And the whole thing is pretty dynamic too, can be changed at will, is dependent on context etc.

May I use this quote as an example of this phenomenon?

Sure. If it's a good example. I was actually wondering if other irrational types recognise any of it.

So yes, I agree with you when you say irrationals see (rational) routines as most strict. For instance, when some routine fails, I tend to want to get rid of it entirely or would want to (aggressively) cut parts out instead of embracing it and molding it into something better. The thing is that the reverse seems true for rational types. In some other thread I think it was snegledmaca who mentioned that irrationals reason by altering their perception and then the general response of rational types was that perception is something that's fixed and that it didn't make much sense to alter your perception of something. Rational types don't seem to separate perception from the real thing, which would be prone to error if it weren't for their rationality backing them up. So IMHO both types can reason about pretty complex systems and I wouldn't call either type's vision brittle really.

I think there's a problem of interpretation here. First, the bolded part is exactly what I meant by the use of the word brittle. That the system will break rather than bend. Second, I think you might be only using IJ types as a comparison here since I definitely change my perceptions plenty. Though in another context I might claim that I don't but that would probably be an attempt to sound more sure about something than I am. Maybe. Perhaps. I guess.

Would you say your perception is more brittle then?

[Smilingeyes]

Would you say your perception is more brittle then?

Uh, no. See it's my perceptive functions that are related to systems and rules and relations and understanding and they're quite free-flowing. In myself I'd ascribe the quality of brittle to my decisions, opinions, knowledge, goals and feelings. Te & Fe.


...

What next? Maybe the characteristics of aristocracy/democracy, social behaviour... ... Connected with what? I guess I ought to continue with positive/negative. Hmm... But maybe I should add the result/process dichotomy for added interest. Maybe.

I guess a reiteration of democracy vs. aristocracy would be the way to start...

Democracy= a form of social action in which it is expected that all people actively participate, either as creators of ideas or as executors of them.
Aristocracy = a form of social action in which the responsibility of both decision and action are on the same people and others are consigned to roles of passive support/observation.


So... Starting with negative * aristocracy... (exxx temperament)

This would be the idea that one is consigned to a role in which one has to do all parts of an act oneself or can do none of them. Either a forced state of helplessness or isolation. It also encompasses the maximums of the external/internal dichotomy, also called explicit/implicit and well-defined/not-well-defined.

In this case the ESTx types are people who for various reasons feel they have to do everything by themselves. They are strict in communication, in decision and in action. They try to put everything in its place, to correct things, first their own mode of action and understanding, then the environs. It starts with limiting thinking, a decision or a general understanding that maintaining a strict code of conduct is required of them, the requirement either explicitly placed by someone else or realized by themselves as a necessity to reach a goal.

Three ESTps have independently explained to me that they can not allow any sign of weakness in themselves, that allowing such is related to bad things. This, to me is a rather pure expression of limiting Ti. This general strict behaviour leads to a variety of concrete expressions and outbursts and forceful actions (Se) that serve the dual role of releasing tension and being the prize the ESTp gives themselves as a result of appropriate behaviour, a sort of letting go... A sort of "I've earned this". From what I've seen common forms of this matter are drinking/eating/shopping/sexual binges. They may in other situations be violent. Common is also some general act against an external negative thing/enemy which acts as an externalization of the ESTps negative feelings, allowing them to purge themselves and act in a useful way simultaneously.

The ESTj works very similarly in many ways, but the limitations as they understand them must be explicitly stated instead of general. I personally don't have any kind of a strong man ideal. I do practise self control but the way I do it is by strict adherence to set rules. Now this also leads to a habit of rules lawyering, in many ways. Also what has to be remembered is that the strict text of a rule and the strict adherence to the text of a rule often enough loses the original meaning of the rule. This leads to a habit of creative reinterpretation of rules. To be ESTj is to not possess a consistent way of life, every situation is an individual situation to which to apply the established parameters in an individual way. Given the pr we have I can say I actually have very few preconceptions and the ones I do, I find constricting and would rather get rid of. But the ESTj is also a rational type. While we don't have set routines, we look for them when possible (Si). We find happiness when we can adhere to such, but to be ESTj is to be removed from such due to specific circumstances. So, it's common enought that we set our own routines that change a lot.

An example of an imaginary estj policeman in a random country...
"I get paid to catch people like you and regulations say I can't beat the names of your accomplices from you but I really do require those names... So this food I have to give you... eat if off the floor... and you don't really need these lights in your cell... and tomorrow I'm going to arrange for an interesting cell mate for you... It's nothing personal you see, but I really require those names." By this example I try to elucidate the habits of the ESTj to conform to the letter of law while breaking the common way of understanding of the same. The ESTj are people who feel they have been put to the spot, forced to make hard decisions constantly.

While considering the ESTxs one way to understand them is that they are people who feel they have been forced into situations in which they can't use N or F, they can't be ethical and they can't just stand by and not act.

ENFs on the other hand would be people who are forced into situations in which they can't make firm decisions and they can't act and change things. Independence through isolation from causality. How should we understand the ENFxs ... The ENFp is in many ways similar to the ESTp, the ideology is much the same at its base but the way they turn out is still quite different. If the ESTp says they can't allow weakness in themselves, the ENFp wouldn't allow strong action from themselves. I'm reminded of a sig by some ENFp on this forum which was something like "Our greatest fear is not that we are weak but that we are strong" (or something to that effect). The limiting Fi makes the ENFp try to be generally beneficial and ethical in their thoughts. The release they get out of that is through Ne, the emergence of an idea, a potential, a revelation of the nature of a thing, getting carried away by an idea. I haven't really heard a good description of this mechanism straight from an ENFps mouth though the ideas that form this I've heard often enough.

The ENFj also adheres to a set number of ethical rules, but they are more implicit, sort of ideals. Lists like: "freedom, truth and beauty" or "pacifism, love and devoutness". The release, as for the ENFp comes from finding ideas, though in this case not specific ones but noticing the general ways of how things are connected. On a social level the release is from finding people who appreciate their advice.

Both the above forms are sort of descriptions of people who feel down when isolated from meaningful social interaction. It's a reasonable general description of the Exxx temperament so there's no contradiction.

...

Next group:

Democracy * positive :

The habit of enjoying, beginning and freely choosing activities that depend on the active participation of more than one person. Focusing on either being the executor and beneficial servant of a cause or being the hatcher of ideas and plans.

More to come...

[Smilingeyes]

A note, written now as it's clear in my mind, to be possibly used later.

While the small-cycle dichotomies are easily observable within oneself and in others, the large-cycle dichotomes, that nominally exist behind most things classically socionical are somewhat more difficult to distinguish in oneself. Perhaps the reason is their more long-term nature. Perhaps it's the ego-superego -caused coexistence of both opposites of said qualities in oneself. I don't know. Anyway, this problem causes issues in the definition of the large-cycle dichotomies.

Nevertheless the distinction between S AND N is a large-cycle dichotomy. It's difficult to ignore them completely. So I feel the need to create more understanding of the derivative large-cycle dichotomies. The complete understanding of the small-cycle ones seems to be needed first though and so I'll handle that first. But here's the tools one has in trying to understand what is the role of a given large cycle dichotomy...

Judicious
= Narrator * Feeling + Taciturn * Thinking
= Intuitive * Static + Sensory * Dynamic
= Rational * Calculating + Irrational * Carefree
= Hot * Tactical + Cold * Strategic
= Aristocracy * Grave + Democratic * Merry
= Obstinacy * Result + Compliance * Process
= Positive * Creation-creating + Negative * Creation-creating

Problems = All definitions require the previous definition of another large-cycle dichotomy.
OTOH if we assume the existence of distinction between thinking and feeling the other characteristics follow from this in a natural way.

So, we must start by talking about the first two characteristics and then continue on to define all other characteristics in a similar manner.

Hmm... Also note that if calculating = Hot * Sensory + Cold * intuitive
Judicious is then Rational * Hot * Sensory + Rational * Cold * Intuitive + Irrational * Hot * Intuitive + Irrational * Cold * Sensory.
So we can try to reach results in other ways as well but that just takes us back to the more simple equation of Dynamic * Sensory + Static * Intuitive so we gain nothing new. We require not mathematical notation but a derivation from the substance of the qualities themselves.

For easy access, the other readily usable definitions for large scale dichotomies:
Merry = Thinking * Static + feeling * dynamic
= Sensory * Narrator + Intuitive * Taciturn
Tactical = intuitive * irrational + rational * sensory
= Thinking * process + Feeling * result
Creation-creating = Thinking * irrational + feeling * irrational
= sensory * result + intuitive * process
Compliant = hot * thinking + cold * feeling
= sensory * negative + intuitive * positive
Careful = hot * sensory + cold * intuitive
= thinking * negative + feeling * positive

Now looking at that I immediately feel I should actually start with the last group and not "Judicious".

So... what do we get from "Careful"...

First...
We can either analyze both definitions separately or as a general whole.
I think the whole will be more illustrative...

What we get is a "chart"...

If Hot
then Careful = Thinking -> Negative -> Sensory (Careful) -> Positive -> Feeling

and

if Cold
then Careful = Feeling -> Positive -> Intuitive (Careful)-> Negative -> Thinking

The first definition, the more common one, gives us the nucleus of the phenomenon, the second definition gives us the context while only giving hints of the essence.

more to come...

[Smilingeyes]

If Hot
then Careful = Thinking -> Negative -> Sensory (Careful) -> Positive -> Feeling

and

if Cold
then Careful = Feeling -> Positive -> Intuitive (Careful)-> Negative -> Thinking

The first definition, the more common one, gives us the nucleus of the phenomenon, the second definition gives us the context while only giving hints of the essence.

In relation to careful, feeling is always connected with positive, not negative. So ethics are free-flowing, a sort of overabundance of goodwill, an extrapolation and extension of social behaviour either causes or is caused by this kind (careful) behaviour. Likewise thinking is negative so decisiveness, hard-nosedness, toughness, mental strictness is focused, contracted, consigned to a smaller space.

It is easy for me to see how the ES version works. There's a decision that something definitely has to be done. Preparations are made for the deed and when the deed is finally done there's a release of energy and goodwill. This is the essence of ES carefulness.

But how about IN carefulness? It starts with a decision of inaction, observation and an idea. The forming of the idea causes a withdrawal that causes decisiveness... How is this "careful"? Furthermore how is the freeflowing nature of the ESFj careful, if by def. ESFj is after the careful deed? At this point I feel it has to be accepted that "careful" is just a name.

If the ES habit of carefulness is obvious, at least for ESTjs, can all other aspects of the same be extrapolated from this?

Perhaps the easiest way to understand the issue comes from the thinking-feeling axis. If related to an action, feeling is positive and thinking negative... the defined atmosphere is social, wishful, one in which logic is consigned to a particular role in which it is particularly effective. We define an atmosphere in which what is focused on is taken care of with logic and expediency but what is not, is left to general good-will.

This in opposition to the kind of action in which thinking is positive, wishful, speculative, and ethics are negative, forced, firm. "Carefree"

In the context of being "hot" ie. preferring social projects I can easily see how when one is only asked to create ideas the situation is carefree. When one is required to be the executor and to put oneself on the line, the situation becomes careful. It is harder for me to understand how this works for the Ixxx temperaments. The ISxx situation is yet somewhat intuitive... If one prefers situations in which one can do everything the way one personally wants to and the effects are limited to what is personally important I can understand how that becomes a carefree situation (and I see this when I look at Ixxx types). But why is INxx careful? How does it actually feel? It's the formation of ideas that preferrably affect only oneself. Is it the understanding that there is no immediate feedback, that said ideas can't be immediately tested, that one is alone with one's ideas and one has to be perfect in their formation because they decide one's own future? Is it the loneliness? If to be INF is to be happy at watching events simply take place... is INT the regret over havind done so, of finding the idea about what went wrong, what should have happened?...

Some of these ideas would obviously benefit from stories from people of particular types. Anyway, this is what Careful and Carefree are. Decisive events associated with abundance of ethical motivation or the opposite.


Now on an observational level I feel both definitions so far are problematic. First... trying to observe ES and IN will likely bring to mind a number of traits many of which will actually work in such a way that the two are the complete opposites with EN and IS being the interim categories. So if one independently watches an ES type focusing on the S portion that after all is the nucleus of this category, one is likely to miss out on what is important and pick ES traits that have little to do with this category. Problematic. OTOH if one picks the definition that hangs on the judging functions one must observe that the defining traits are rather far apart. The good thing is that for "careful" to exist both the defining traits must be present, so in that sense there are no alternatives, no way to pick wrong. I like this definition better. The problem comes from that one person can't be thinking-negative and feeling-positive at the same time. So there must be a period of observation during which the trait "careful" is shown.

[Smilingeyes]

A rush job using the same principles as before...

Compliant = hot * thinking + cold * feeling
= sensory * negative + intuitive * positive

That is restricted sensory action, optimism of ideas. A preference for getting something done, with an ability to accept many ideas. -> Compliance. The name seems reasonable. For the opposite, limitations on ideas, willingness to accept many sensoric ways to execute.

Creation-creating = Thinking * irrational + feeling * irrational
= sensory * result + intuitive * process

Simple, variable sensoric, concrete, physical action and focused, pushy, complicated, patient intuitive action. Complicated reasoning, simple concrete solutions. A focus on the mental structures being the thing that gives the name.

The opposite, emotion creating being complicated careful physical solutions, simple hasty ideas. This seems to be somewhat different from the name emotivisty/emotion-creating. But what is perhaps what gives the name is the habit of not taking ideas in conversation that seriously, not spending that much time with them, just looking for a simple solution to let the "real work" begin? Perhaps.

Tactical = intuitive * irrational + rational * sensory
= Thinking * process + Feeling * result
Complicated, pushy, energetic decisions and plans, simplistic, hasty and holistic emotions. Decision-making that seems too concentrated on details, hasty, over-arching ethical-emotional responses. A generally nit-picking, erratic, skillful, complex way of action.

The opposite, strategy being big, general, over-arching and hasty decisions combined with a complex, well-managed emotional and ethical state.

Merry = Thinking * Static + feeling * dynamic
= Sensory * Narrator + Intuitive * Taciturn

This is actually perhaps the most difficult... Anyway...
Routine sensoric actions combined with speculation in the realm of ideas. No consistency of ideas but consistency in execution.

The opposite, grave being consistency in ideas, but little consistency in execution.

And finally back to the beginning:

Judicious being routine in the realm of ethics, ethics and speculation in the realm of decisions.

Resolute being consistency in the realm of decisions and speculation in the realm of ethics.

And once again, all the above traits are long-term, weak traits that only become apparent with consistent observation.
Nevertheless many interesting things appear here. Me like.