I just had an idea about something

[Hitta]

I just had an interesting idea about how extraverted/introverted and judging/perceiving functions work. The follows is an idea I have came up with:

Ego Functions
Extraverted Judging: How you do something
Introverted Judging: What that something is you do
Extraverted Perceiving: How you see something
Introverted Perceiving: What you see

To explain this I am going to use an INTj as an example.

Extraverted Judging function according to my idea is how you do something. This means the manner in which one conducts his daily activities. As for an INTj, they will do things economical. They will try to do things as symmetrical and aligned as possible. They will no blow resources without reason. They will conduct things in a systematic manner.

Introverted Judging according to my idea is what the individual actually is or does. This is what the person actually does. Most organized thought is of the introverted judging functions manner. In an INTjs case it would be to analyze and to break ideas, objects, and systems apart. This is what the introverted judging function does... it is what thought is.

Extraverted Perceiving according to this is how you see something, or in the manner in which something is viewed. For INTjs, its relatively. INTjs see all the possibilities, or see all the possible scenerios when viewing something. This is how they look at everything.

Introverted Perceiving according to my idea is what the person sees and values. In the INTjs case it is originality and singularity. INTjs see all originally, and would love to be original. This is what the person strives to be.




Now basically there is an equilibrium to how the functions work. Everything thats done is presented in the opposite manner. For INTjs, the disorganize things in an organized manner. Now one of the questions that has been brought up is how Ne and Ni work when using this same rule.

Well +Ne/-Ni is viewed as looking at things in a relative manner, and striving to see originality in things. These two things are going in the opposite directions like all of the other functions that are connected. Relative is multiplicity. Its looking at all things as having unspecialized characteristics about them. Take the concepts of right and wrong for example. +Ne views these things as being arbitrary, or ordinary. Basically +Ne is about viewing things in an ordinary manner, not placing special meaning in certain things. Its looking at all things in a despecialized manner. -Ni is the content, it strives to be original or not arbitrary.

Now take -Ne/+Ni for example. -Ne is about seeing things in a absolutistic manner. Its about seeing things in a singular viewpoint. Singular could be replaced with "original" viewpoint. +Ne values normalcy though. It strives to fit in. It doesn't want to stand out.

[Gilly]

You need to stop trying to have these epiphanies about how Socionics "really works" and just study what's there before you try to revolutionize the way we think about shit.

[Hitta]

you're not too smart are you... anyways, the day something like that comes out of the mouth of an ENTp is the day I leave socionics alone. You are no ENTp.

[Gilly]

Wanna retype me?

[Suomea]

you're not too smart are you... anyways, the day something like that comes out of the mouth of an ENTp is the day I leave socionics alone. You are no ENTp.

Later Hitta. Thanks for stopping by.

P.S. just in case on the off chance that Gilly isn't ENTp which he is, I'll say it too.

You need to stop trying to have these epiphanies about how Socionics "really works" and just study what's there before you try to revolutionize the way we think about shit.

[Hitta]

Do you even realize what the chances of an ENTp showing his ass off to the public is? It's like 1billion to 1. Also, I have serious serious doubts from reviewing your posts that you are an ENTp. Sometimes I wonder if the people here even know anything about socionics.

[Hitta]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Gilly is ESTp. He looks ESTp, acts ESTp.

[Suomea]

You can continue to think whatever you want to Hitta. Your Ni will keep making you believe that the choices you make and the path that you state are correct. I have not seen one piece of Ne from you. You refuse to look at all the possibilities and just think the one possibility that you think is correct. Blocking out alternate possibilities and just believing your own is the sign of heavy leading Ni. I do not assume that this or any other post that I write will have any effect on you. You will continue to belief whatever it is that you believe. If you truly are INTj then you use your 8th function like it's your job. I think INTp heavy Ni subtype is much more likely though.

If you do not think me to be an ENTp I'm ok with that. I actually do really want to hear arguments for me being another type (since I have leading Ne and love to hear alternate possibilities). Though your opinion I don't value too much. I mean you can write something if you like but if you make stupid arguments like "An ENTp would never eat a peanut butter sandwich" I'm really not interested in hearing it.

[Gilly]

Yeah that's never been said before...go cahoot with all the people who agree with you (Sergei Ganin and Tansigent, lol) and see how far you get.

[Hitta]

My question is how am I not using "Ne"(although I don't think it exists like this, but I could be wrong)? This is basically what happens. I suppy an idea. Someone skims the idea and tells me I'm wrong automatically without thinking about it. I'm interested in arguments back at what I'm saying, not people telling me I'm stupid or retarded for making the arguments. The only arguments I have seen so far that even resembles +Ne/-Ni have can from Jonathan. As I have said before, I am open to any interpretation to a concept that you can come up with, not having a concept and automatically thinking my ideas are wrong without a reason do not count. I am not showing +Ni/-Ni, I can pretty much guarantee that. Although I can really say anything without a doubt, to me being an INTj is pretty close to being certain. I have done tons of thinking when it comes to the types and how they work, and I have yet to see a solution that even closely explains the phenomenon that my model shows. Don't tell me I'm wrong, tell me why I am wrong, otherwise I'll think you're just another person on the forums disagreeing with me because of fear of change(which from what I've gathered so far about you describes you very well).

[Gilly]

This has fuck-all to do with Ne. It has to do with you not taking the time to understand the completeness of the structure of socionics and inherent irrelevance of your vague observations; maybe if you were sitting next to Jung when he was observing people or writing psychological types, or if you were to invent your own typology, you could have some useful insights. But there is no need for all of this vague guesswork when everything is already laid out for us in the system already. Just leave it alone.

[Hitta]

Lol, vague.... how is it vague. The descriptions of the +/- functions were written by Victor Gulenko for starters. I take it you haven't read my whole theory, otherwise you would probably understand what I am saying. Also, I don't get how you could come off as saying that we should accept things as they are and believe that you are an ENTp. ENTps have a strong strong need to be original and to come up with original ideas. Thats what its all about to be an Alpha. Now my theory states that instead of just using the singular introverted and extraverted functions like Ti and Ne(for ENTps and INTjs), we actually use -Ti/+Te and +Ne/-Ni(for ENTps and INTjs). -Ti is disorganizing and anarchical thought. Its basically desystematization. +Te is basically organized process or being economical. +Te is about structured maintenance of something. So technically INTjs and ENTps structurally produce desystematical ideas, or disorganize stuff in an organized manner. ESTjs and ISTps use the same thinking function. +Ne about positive intuitive processes, or as I've said in the previous post, how they see something. In this manner they see things in a multiple viewpoint relative way. -Ni strives for originality and singularity. INFps and ENFjs use the same intuition function.

[Gilly]

I actually agree with the definitions of +/- for the most part now that I've done some reading, thinking, and observing, but this stuff is total bullshit, and I don't think you've done anything original beyond be the first one here to include Gulenko's work in your whackjob interpretations. So piss off.

[Hitta]

actually i'll agree with you there... i didn't make the model, someone else did

[Gilly]

This bullshit? Ummmm...

I just had an idea about something

You had someone else's idea? That's profound. Maybe some day I can give birth to myself.

[Hitta]

i've been trying to deduce some things from the model, I didn't make the model though, so I can't take credit for it.

[UDP]

You better not let BG see that photo.

[Jonathan]

refuse to look at all the possibilities and just think the one possibility that you think is correct. Blocking out alternate possibilities and just believing your own is the sign of heavy leading Ni. ... (since I have leading Ne and love to hear alternate possibilities).

I don't know why such a predominanting view on this forum that that's what the difference between Ni and Ne are....(Ni - being closed to possibilities and assuming one is always right; Ne - being open to different points of view).

It's interesting because that actually sounds like the hitta's definition for +Ne vs. +Ni.

Wikisocion gives this definition of Ni: "Introverted intuition is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects. "

Rick has also suggested in a number of places that one the main observable characteristics of Ni is suggesting a certain intangibility or deeper complexity to things.

If you think about it, it's clear that being closed to other points of view can have many causes, some of them type related, some not. I think rational types may seem more "settled" on a point of view...particularly acc-Ti has been noted in that regard....although the main thing that makes a type seem close-minded is that the type doesn't value the things that your type does. Anyhow, being closed to other points of view is clearly a weakness, so if it's at all related to non-Ne, it would be weak Ne rather than strong Ni. In practice though, even people with Ne as PoLR or role may be open to different points of view; it's just that they're more focused on what they have to do than on considering "theoretical" stuff that doesn't seem to apply to something clearly useful.

In hitta's case, I think the main reason why he seems to only consider his point of view is that he's aware that if his premises were wrong, he's have to start from scratch, so he has to "mull over" any new data before he makes a drastic change in his understanding. I can see this as being a possible leading-Ti behavior. Also, his motivation is to advocate for a certain position, which can be seen as a rational Ti/Fe behavior.

As to the question of whether hitta should learn the basics before proposing his own new stuff, I can see both points of view on that. There's nothing wrong with making up new theories as long as one clearly distinguishes them from classical Socionics and avoids making incorrect statements about classical Socionics. I do believe that being as well-acquainted as possible with the standard concepts and standard ways of applying them would greatly assist in developing and articulating new theories. The main difference between Gulenko and other who would want to be like him is that Gulenko at least has a greater knowledge, experience and connection with the Socionics community. However, it's understood that each person has limited time, as most people here probably have lots of other things to do besides Socionics.

As to Gilly, I'm not going to say for sure what type he is, but I could see SLE as a possibility. His "strongly assertive" responses to some posts could be viewed as Se/Ti.

[Suomea]

My question is how am I not using "Ne"(although I don't think it exists like this, but I could be wrong)? This is basically what happens. I suppy an idea. Someone skims the idea and tells me I'm wrong automatically without thinking about it. I'm interested in arguments back at what I'm saying, not people telling me I'm stupid or retarded for making the arguments. The only arguments I have seen so far that even resembles +Ne/-Ni have can from Jonathan. As I have said before, I am open to any interpretation to a concept that you can come up with, not having a concept and automatically thinking my ideas are wrong without a reason do not count. I am not showing +Ni/-Ni, I can pretty much guarantee that. Although I can really say anything without a doubt, for me being an INTj is pretty close to being certain. I have done tons of thinking when it comes to the types and how they work, and I have yet to see a solution that even closely explains the phenomenon that my model shows. Don't tell me I'm wrong, tell me why I am wrong, otherwise I'll think you're just another person on the forums disagreeing with me because of fear of change(which from what I've gathered so far about you describes you very well).

I don't really want to take the time to do all this, but I'll make one more post. Maybe you'll immediately dismiss this because you have your own ways of thinking about stuff but ok so here goes Ne. Ne is about seeing multiple possibilities. It's about seeing thousands and thousands of alternate ways of thinking about something. It's about taking the viewpoint that you're wrong and going down that road and seeing where it takes you, and pretty much doing this for every viewpoint. Once you see all the viewpoints you decide which one is best.

Ni is about the opposite kinda. Lead Ni is about not thinking about all the different possibilities but rather seeing the one possibility. It is about belief.

[Suomea]

In hitta's case, I think the main reason why he seems to only consider his point of view is that he's aware that if his premises were wrong, he's have to start from scratch, so he has to "mull over" any new data before he makes a drastic change in his understanding. I can see this as being a possible leading-Ti behavior. Also, his motivation is to advocate for a certain position, which can be seen as a rational Ti/Fe behavior.

Possibly. I haven't ruled out INTj for him, just think INTp holds much more weight.

[Ezra]

I just had an interesting idea about how extraverted/introverted and judging/perceiving functions work. The follows is an idea I have came up with:

Ego Functions
Extraverted Judging: How you do something
Introverted Judging: What that something is you do
Extraverted Perceiving: How you see something
Introverted Perceiving: What you see

Surely in order to know how one sees something one must know what one sees. Therefore, EJ and EP are simply better versions of IJ and IP respectively, which is clearly incorrect. Hence, your idea is rendered flawed. Care to explain the flaw?

[Hitta]

I just had an interesting idea about how extraverted/introverted and judging/perceiving functions work. The follows is an idea I have came up with:

Ego Functions
Extraverted Judging: How you do something
Introverted Judging: What that something is you do
Extraverted Perceiving: How you see something
Introverted Perceiving: What you see

Surely in order to know how one sees something one must know what one sees. Therefore, EJ and EP are simply better versions of IJ and IP respectively, which is clearly incorrect. Hence, your idea is rendered flawed. Care to explain the flaw?

Oh dear, um ok I think I understand where I got yall off on this. Ok for starters in the ego block everyone has an extraverted judging, introverted judging, extraverted perceiving, and introverted perceiving. How you do something means the manner in which one does something. For ENTjs as an example, the do things in a risky chaotic manner(Extraverted Judging;-Te). I didn't mean for this to mean that EJ types know how to do something. ENTjs organize and systematize things in a risky way. Organize and systematize is what they do(Introverted Judging;+Ti). Introverted Judging functions are the major thought processes in people. They are what the person constantly uses. ENTjs see things in an absolutist manner(Extraverted Perceiving;-Ne). This is how they see the world. They tend to believe in the spiritualistic amazing original world.
+Ni is what the ENTj wants to see and what they want to be. So the ENTj usually wants to fit in and conform to society. I hope this sums things up well.

[Ezra]

Oh dear, um ok I think I understand where I got yall off on this. Ok for starters in the ego block everyone has an extraverted judging, introverted judging, extraverted perceiving, and introverted perceiving.

And this is where I disagree.

[Hitta]

Oh dear, um ok I think I understand where I got yall off on this. Ok for starters in the ego block everyone has an extraverted judging, introverted judging, extraverted perceiving, and introverted perceiving.

And this is where I disagree.

If it wasn't like this there would be part of the person missing so to speak. They would be missing key aspects of personality.

[Creepy-bg]

You better not let BG see that photo.

you're assuming i haven't seen Gilly in that position a hundred times in real life. trust me, pictures are no substitute for our forbidden man-love :wink:

[tcaudilllg]

IF there must be two functions per one so to say. this really is another model, i think. model a says that there is one and only one function per model spot of eight in total.

I disagree. This model elaborates on the phenomena Augusta attested to, by seperating functional manifestations of the information elements into two halves. Hitta's contribution is the actual act of seeing the functions of model A not as solitary elements, but rather as interplays between two elements. Whether this model is distinct from Model-A depends on whether you define a model rigidly as described (which I don't) or as an indicator of a general framework of phenomena that may or may not be differentiated from each other in the modeler's mind.

I think we need to take stock of the full scope of consequences as to what this discovery means.

[Ezra]

This model elaborates on the phenomena Augusta attested to, by seperating functional manifestations of the information elements into two halves.

Yes, this is hitta's basis and I disagree with it. Then it gets too theoretical and I lose interest.