Si/Ni/Fi/Ti and Systems

[Joy]

Anyway, what caught my attention about your first post were the words "connections" and "processes".

It made me think of -

"System, noun, 1) a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular
- a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network
- Physiology
- the human or animal body as a whole
[etc.]"

what a loaded question

I suppose the word "system" could be defined in ways in which it sort of works to describe Si (or Ni), but Si and Ni are "systems" the way Fi is "social rules and etiquette". By this I mean that I can see how from a Static perspective (especially Ti or Fi dominant) Si and Ni might be thought of as systems, just as how from a Fi PoLR perspective, Fi might be thought of as "social rules and etiquette". See the quoted post below for an explanation:

part of what is being described is how entp/estp experience Fi.

I've thought of that... that what you guys have been describing as "social rules" or "social etiquette" is just how Fi looks through Fi PoLR eyes.

For example, if a guy is talking to me and he doesn't respect a boundary while trying to fill his Fe hidden agenda (this just happened less than a week ago), my response would probably seem cold to him. In another situation (or if he didn't drop it) I may have expressed to him in one form or another that his behavior is inappropriate.

Now, my response to him had NOTHING to do with "social rules" or "social etiquette", but I could see from his perspective how he might think it does. (Interestingly, now that I think about it, he may even think I dislike him, which isn't the case.)

We see the world through colored glasses, and the color is our quadra values. If I was looking through blue glasses and I saw something yellow, to me it would look green, and if I didn't know any better, I'd probably call it that. ExTps see people's responses to their Fi violations through Fe/Ti glasses. It's no wonder that what they perceive is "social" "rules" or "etiquette".

Allow me to explain how systems are related to information aspects/elements...

Ti and Fi are about systems, or the relationships between fixed things (or even fixed 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.

Ni and Si, on the other hand, are the ever changing relationships between events. Because of the changing nature of Ni and Si, they cannot be used to build other parts of a "system" upon them. (That would be like trying to build a house on quicksand, or trying to use water as glue, or trying to nail jello to a wall.)

A system is a method of classification, a set of related definitions, the interrelated parts of a whole, a complex organization of interconnected or interdependent components. Those are all static things. Even if aspects of a systems have "cause and effect relationships", that is not in itself what defines it as system.

Point being, because "cause and effect relationships" is not the best definition, and because the definition works better to describe other information aspects/elements, I do all that I can to avoid using the word "system" when talking about Si or Ni. And if someone wants to insist that Ni and Si are best defined as "systems", I'll argue the point as tenaciously as I would someone saying that Fi is about "social rules and etiquette".

[Ezra]

It's fair to say that because Ti and Fi are Rational elements, Si and Ni Irrational, the former pair of functions are based on systems. This probably relates to the description (please someone find it if you can) about Rational elements processing and categorising information (the idea of 'j'), and Irrational elements simply perceiving the information, but not categorising it. I could be wrong, because I can't actually remember if this was a proper socionics source of not, so correct me if I am.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Every introverted function is a system. It's quite easy.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I tend to view things like the way this diagram is set out:



The main thing (or me ) is in the centre, and then there are lots of secondary things below that, and so on. But my mind probably isn't as set in stone as that - I can swap subtrees around and use them in another system, or I can replace one thing with an equilavent thing. If something is not so important, or it is difficult to determine which is better, I just pick anything really.

But Ni and Si seem to be continuous rather than properly organised and defined like that diagram (although it might not be completely static, it always has a basic shape). I think Diana's descriptions of Si and Ni are good .

(Would a feedback-loop be an appropriate description of Si? I.e. something happens, and then something else changes in response - there is no complex system as with Ti or Fi, though it is very efficient . I'm possibly talking complete nonsense here, so you have been teh warned).

[tcaudilllg]

Even if aspects of a systems have "cause and effect relationships", that is not in itself what defines it as system.

Love that 7th function Ti.

Well you're wrong, let's leave it at that.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I wouldn't say my internal system is cause and effect - at least not directly - I process stuff, cut and paste bits from other places, create new thoughts based on analogous data and so on.

[Joy]

I tend to view things like the way this diagram is set out:

excellent

[Joy]

Would any dynamic types care to offer their opinions on this matter?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Would any dynamic types care to offer their opinions on this matter?

You're asking for somebody to agree with you?

[marooned]

Actually, I rather agree with Joy on this one.

I do not think of Ni and Si as systems. Can I say why when I am really tired? Is it worth the effort of holding my eyes open?

Be warned: sleepy post ahead.

First, I'll declare the system nature of and .

Ti and Fi are both about external things in the outside world. But Ti is objective in that it isn't about how a person is responding internally to the objects outside of them--they are merely noticing connections between the objects that simply *are.* In other words, anyone should be able to agree (for the most part) on these connections (hopefully). Fi, however, is subjective in that is involves a person's internal response to connections.

A Ti system could be like...
When A is on, B is off and C is on. However, when A, B, and C are all off, and you turn B on first, then A is off and so is C. But, if A, B, and C are all off, and you turn C on first, it activates A and B (turning them both on), and A, B, and C all explode. Which is why C must never be turned on first.
This is objective. Everyone can agree on these interconnections between A, B, and C... and if in doubt, they can test it.

An Fi system could be like...
There are certain cases where staring at someone unnerves them and other cases where it flatters them. The Fi system enables you to rather accurately know when staring at someone will unnerve them and when it won't. (just as a simple example)

Or...

A by itself is bad. But A + B is okay. B is good. And C is bad when it's C + A, and good when it's C + B. In other words, C is neutral.

This is like the Ti system, except it is *subjective*. Not everyone will agree that A is bad, B is good, and C is neutral. It depends on the individual person's feelings regarding A, B, and C... or their perception of the connections between them.

Anyway, to me Fi and Ti are clearly systems, or at least that's a significant part of what they are.

Ni and Si, however, are not.
Ni is internal and Si is external. But in this case I think that "internal" isn't really "subjective" but it is more "abstract," and Si conversely is "concrete." Also, as dynamic implies motion through time... something changing constantly... it's hard to make a system out of something like that. Unfortunately I find Ni and Si both difficult to explain. Si seems overly simplified to me everytime it is explained by anyone. Ni seems overly obscure anytime it's explained by anyone... hell, maybe all of it is overly simplified. I think Ni and Si may be the most difficult IM elements to explain (not only are they about interconnections, but they're dynamic... this is not the easiest thing to explain... it's something that can be "sensed" but not easily put into words).

I thought about Ni and Si in the shower this morning. Ni is when I'm in my mind, pondering, reflecting... not noticing anything outside of my mind. Si is the oncoming awareness of the feeling of the water on me and it poses a sequence of interruptions, pulling me from my ponderings. The interruption is sometimes perceived as unpleasant by me. I spend most of my time in the shower reflecting, and very little time actually doing anything, or paying attention to anything in regards to my body. The ponderings may often drift between the past and the future, often in a visual way. It isn't a system. It can never be fixed. It always changes. There's nothing that can be formed into a clear system. Pinning it down seems impossible. As for Si, I don't really know how that works... there has to be more to it than just physical sensation... I don't know...

[Smilingeyes]

This kind of stuff pisses me off. There's an agreed upon dictionary meaning to a word like system and then some idiots come in and start claiming that nuh-uh, when people say "system" they don't mean system but "they mean this completely different thing that I'm describing now". Si and Ni are by definition, systems. If you don't agree with that, you're not using the english language and are a moron.

[Smilingeyes]

where did you read that? in your own smilex dictionaries lol?

That comment makes no sense at all. The dictionary quote is in the first post of the thread you illiterate nitwit.

"System, noun, 1) a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular
- a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network
- Physiology
- the human or animal body as a whole
[etc.]"

Though.. I guess I'm an idiot as well, trying to talk sense to such as you. *shrug* Bah. It's a stupid thread anyway. See you around.

[Joy]

Where did that definition come from? As I look around online, this is the most common one:

sys·tem (sstm)
n.

• 1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.
  2. A functionally related group of elements, especially:
  [list:a131afdcff]a. The human body regarded as a functional physiological unit.
  b. An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or functions.
  c. A group of physiologically or anatomically complementary organs or parts: the nervous system; the skeletal system.
  d. A group of interacting mechanical or electrical components.
  e. A network of structures and channels, as for communication, travel, or distribution.
  f. A network of related computer software, hardware, and data transmission devices.

3. An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles.
4. A social, economic, or political organizational form.
5. A naturally occurring group of objects or phenomena: the solar system.
6. A set of objects or phenomena grouped together for classification or analysis.
7. A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction.
8. An organized and coordinated method; a procedure. See Synonyms at method.
9. The prevailing social order; the establishment. Used with the: You can't beat the system.[/list:u:a131afdcff]


In all of these definitions, including Minde's, they're either describing Ti/Fi or they're a static perspective of something dynamic.

Smilingeyes, did you read my first post?

[Not A Communist Shill]

All introverted functions store information of some kind - so I don't see any problem with Si\Ni being considered systems - but they are a different kind of system to a Ti\Fi one. If you imagine an airplane on auto-pilot, the plane reacts to external events and stabilises itself - this is a kind of system.

[Joy]

All introverted functions store information of some kind - so I don't see any problem with Si\Ni being considered systems - but they are a different kind of system to a Ti\Fi one. If you imagine an airplane on auto-pilot, the plane reacts to external events and stabilises itself - this is a kind of system.

I would say this is more the Si result of a Ti system (its design and programming).

[FDG]

All introverted functions store information of some kind - so I don't see any problem with Si\Ni being considered systems - but they are a different kind of system to a Ti\Fi one. If you imagine an airplane on auto-pilot, the plane reacts to external events and stabilises itself - this is a kind of system.

I would say this is more the Si result of a Ti system (its design and programming).

Gross. In economics, there's dynamic systems that are obviously Si or Ni based, depending on how you approach them. I don't see what's the problem in considering those two functions systems honestly.

[FDG]

Where did that definition come from? As I look around online, this is the most common one:

sys·tem (sstm)
n.
[list]1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

Which is exactly the same thing smilingeyes posted. What are you trying to do?

[Joy]

All introverted functions store information of some kind - so I don't see any problem with Si\Ni being considered systems - but they are a different kind of system to a Ti\Fi one. If you imagine an airplane on auto-pilot, the plane reacts to external events and stabilises itself - this is a kind of system.

I would say this is more the Si result of a Ti system (its design and programming).

Gross. In economics, there's dynamic systems that are obviously Si or Ni based, depending on how you approach them.

Explain.

[Joy]

Where did that definition come from? As I look around online, this is the most common one:

sys·tem (sstm)
n.
[list]1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

Which is exactly the same thing smilingeyes posted. What are you trying to do?

My point was that there was never an entirely "agreed upon" dictionary definition. There are many different dictionary definitions of "system".

[FDG]

All introverted functions store information of some kind - so I don't see any problem with Si\Ni being considered systems - but they are a different kind of system to a Ti\Fi one. If you imagine an airplane on auto-pilot, the plane reacts to external events and stabilises itself - this is a kind of system.

I would say this is more the Si result of a Ti system (its design and programming).

Gross. In economics, there's dynamic systems that are obviously Si or Ni based, depending on how you approach them.

Explain.

There are "systems" that stabilize over time, that is, the variables that compose the systems interact over a time span, interact with each other in a different way at each time, and multiply-add each other with time as a variable. They are clearly systems because they are formed by interrelated objects, yet they clearly lack a static component.

[Joy]

This is another static perspective of something dynamic. Si and Ni observe, but they don't classify.

Forget it. I'm in no mood to argue. We will all, as always, just believe what we want to believe anyways.

[Not A Communist Shill]

This is another static perspective of something dynamic. Si and Ni observe, but they don't classify.

Forget it. I'm in no mood to argue. We will all, as always, just believe what we want to believe anyways.

This is a system that stabilises itself, or harmonises, rather than something that classifies.

[FDG]

This is another static perspective of something dynamic. Si and Ni observe, but they don't classify.

the system exists whether you classify it or not. It's abstract, and dynamic, so it can only be Ni. Now, the mathematical symbols used to describe them are language - that is Ti, yes, the language used to describe the system. But the system itself is clearly not of a static nature.

Forget it. I'm in no mood to argue. We will all, as always, just believe what we want to believe anyways.

No, I don't forget it. There is only one possible way that things are in this matter, it's not what we want to believe but what is correct to know.

[Joy]

This is another static perspective of something dynamic. Si and Ni observe, but they don't classify.

Forget it. I'm in no mood to argue. We will all, as always, just believe what we want to believe anyways.

This is a system that stabilises itself, or harmonises, rather than something that classifies.

Si does whatever it does. It exists. That's all there is to it.

It's Ti that classifies it, at least in that example. Determining if and how things that can be viewed as a system is a Ti way of looking at Si. The study of such a system is certainly Ti.

[Joy]

Example (this is about Ti in general, not Si):

The organization of living things can be seen like a pyramid or tree with seven major levels or categories: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

Those living things would still exist just as they do without ever having been categorized in this fashion. One may argue that this categorization has always been there whether we had already recognized it or not, that nature created its own system, and that we're just observing it.

From a Socionics perspective, Ti is one aspect of reality. As such, this organization/categorization/systemization of living things is one aspect of nature. That doesn't mean that nature is Ti.



Now going back to Si...

Si exists in everything. It's one distinct aspect of reality. It does not classify or organize itself. The classification and organization of it is the Ti (or perhaps Fi) aspect of the same reality.

[FDG]

This is another static perspective of something dynamic. Si and Ni observe, but they don't classify.

Forget it. I'm in no mood to argue. We will all, as always, just believe what we want to believe anyways.

This is a system that stabilises itself, or harmonises, rather than something that classifies.

Si does whatever it does. It exists. That's all there is to it.

Everything does all it does, existing.

[Joy]

Yeah... And it does not classify or organize itself. The classification and organization of it is the Ti (or perhaps Fi) aspect of the same reality.

[FDG]

Yeah... And it does not classify or organize itself. The classification and organization of it is the Ti (or perhaps Fi) aspect of the same reality.

But there is a system there, wether you classify it or not. And that system can be Si, Ni.

[Not A Communist Shill]

A life-support machine is a system, but it doesn't particularly classify things.

[Joy]

Yeah... And it does not classify or organize itself. The classification and organization of it is the Ti (or perhaps Fi) aspect of the same reality.

But there is a system there, wether you classify it or not. And that system can be Si, Ni.

Yes, there's a Ti aspect to everything, just like there's a Si aspect to everything.

Example (this is about Ti in general, not Si):

The organization of living things can be seen like a pyramid or tree with seven major levels or categories: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

Those living things would still exist just as they do without ever having been categorized in this fashion. One may argue that this categorization has always been there whether we had already recognized it or not, that nature created its own system, and that we're just observing it.

From a Socionics perspective, Ti is one aspect of reality. As such, this organization/categorization/systemization of living things is one aspect of nature. That doesn't mean that nature is Ti.

[FDG]

Yeah... And it does not classify or organize itself. The classification and organization of it is the Ti (or perhaps Fi) aspect of the same reality.

But there is a system there, wether you classify it or not. And that system can be Si, Ni.

Yes, there's a Ti aspect to everything, just like there's a Si aspect to everything.

No way. Stop with these stupid generalizations. A Si system is only a Si system, and its description in, say, mathematical terms will be Ti. But think now about an auto mechanic that has never studies mathematics and that only operates on systems out of his prior experience with them. He is not using any Ti, yet he is interacting with a system. He's doing whatever is doing, so he has to be Si. He's also doing what works, so that must be Te!

[Joy]

A life-support machine is a system, but it doesn't particularly classify things.

You're right, a life-support machine does not possess a psyche.

sys·tem (sstm)
n.

1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

Notice that this is a NOUN?

[Not A Communist Shill]

A life-support machine is a system, but it doesn't particularly classify things.

You're right, a life-support machine does not possess a psyche.

Neither does a system. But both the system and the life-support machine exist.

sys·tem (sstm)
n.

1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

Notice that this is a NOUN?

According to that description, the human body is a system. And the life-support machine replicates that. Also, the life-support machine has things in it that are all interrelated. Probably.

[Joy]

Yeah... And it does not classify or organize itself. The classification and organization of it is the Ti (or perhaps Fi) aspect of the same reality.

But there is a system there, wether you classify it or not. And that system can be Si, Ni.

Yes, there's a Ti aspect to everything, just like there's a Si aspect to everything.

No way. Stop with these stupid generalizations. A Si system is only a Si system, and its description in, say, mathematical terms will be Ti. But think now about an auto mechanic that has never studies mathematics and that only operates on systems out of his prior experience with them. He is not using any Ti, yet he is interacting with a system. He's doing whatever is doing, so he has to be Si. He's also doing what works, so that must be Te!

So the fact that he is not aware of a Ti system means that it does not exist? (btw, you're talking about an information element and I'm talking about an information aspect... big difference, in this situation.)

Also, Ti is not just about mathematics, as I'm sure you know.

[Joy]

A life-support machine is a system, but it doesn't particularly classify things.

You're right, a life-support machine does not possess a psyche.

Neither does a system. But both the system and the life-support machine exist.

OMFG

Please review the difference between an information aspect and an information element.

[FDG]

Yeah... And it does not classify or organize itself. The classification and organization of it is the Ti (or perhaps Fi) aspect of the same reality.

But there is a system there, wether you classify it or not. And that system can be Si, Ni.

Yes, there's a Ti aspect to everything, just like there's a Si aspect to everything.

No way. Stop with these stupid generalizations. A Si system is only a Si system, and its description in, say, mathematical terms will be Ti. But think now about an auto mechanic that has never studies mathematics and that only operates on systems out of his prior experience with them. He is not using any Ti, yet he is interacting with a system. He's doing whatever is doing, so he has to be Si. He's also doing what works, so that must be Te!

So the fact that he is not aware of a Ti system means that it does not exist? (btw, you're talking about an information element and I'm talking about an information aspect... big difference, in this situation.)

Also, Ti is not just about mathematics, as I'm sure you know.

The second is out of context given that I was contextualizing and you inferred from it so the implication is logically incorrect.

To the first I reply by saying that if he is not aware of the Ti of a system, then it must be a different kind of system, and since it's concrete, then it must be Si.

[FDG]

A life-support machine is a system, but it doesn't particularly classify things.

You're right, a life-support machine does not possess a psyche.

Neither does a system. But both the system and the life-support machine exist.

OMFG

Please review the difference between an information aspect and an information element.

What are you talking about? A life support machine is a system, but it's not systematized, it just does whatever it does, which by your definition is Si.