Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: A short summary of the functions

  1. #1
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A short summary of the functions

    A short summary of the functions in a form of a story. Call them information elements or information aspects instead of functions if you will. My doesn't yet bend around those three concepts and their differences well enough to know which ones I am talking about

    Anyways here is the story...

    Te: This rock weights 200 pounds. A rock over 100 pounds is defined as being heavy. Thus this rock is a heavy rock. (evaluating the correctness of objectively verifiable logical statements and their logical consequences)
    Si: Lifting that rock will hurt your back for sure. (awareness of "inter body" cause and effect relationships)
    Se: Let's throw this rock to that fountain to cause a big splash of water. (will to do something and awareness of the direct effect of your actions)
    Ni: Throwing the rock could cause the fountain to break, people around it get all wet, someone call the police and us ending up in jail. Keep that in mind. (intuition of consequences, understanding long term cause and effect relations)
    Fe: Ending up in jail would make our parents very very angry and our school principal to black list us. (awareness of the emotional effect an event will have on people)
    Fi: I love huge splashes a lot but I hate jail even more. And I promised my parents to behave. I definately don't want to be a part of this. (stable subjective value system, moral firmness, loyalty)
    Ne: The splash would be like a miniature version of a tsunami caused by a falling asteroid on the pacific ocean. It would be interesting to see. (intuition of conceptualization, awareness of the common abstract qualities of real world objects and phenomenon)
    Ti: If any of you will vote for throwing the rock but are against making people wet then your values are contradictory, illogical and wrong. You have to be against both or for both in order to have a consistent value system. (awareness of the logical consistency of a system of thinking)

    Then another example to differentiate and .

    is the logic of measurable, objective statements. "Black ball weights 5kg", "Blue ball weights 10kg", "Blue ball is heavier than black ball" are statements whose correctness can be objectively verified. As a result is very good at modeling and manipulating objective reality.

    is the logic of qualitative, subjective statements. "I am a Christian", "I don't believe in God" are statements. The concepts used are not measurable but instead they are _defined_. As Christianity is defined to include a belief in one God then a statement "I am a Christian but I don't believe in God" is a logical fallacy and untrue. As a result is very good at modeling and manipulating philosophical systems and generally "systems of thinking".

    One more example. In logic you may say: "Let's define a cube shaped ball." That creates a system. Now the claim "A ball has eight corners" is true in this particular system.

    doesn't work with theoretical systems of thinking. Instead takes a real world object and names that object "a ball". So there is only one system of thinking which is the "reality". tries to make sure that everybody calls the same objects with the same names (i.e. tries to force everyone to use the same system of thinking). From a point of view "a ball" never has eight corners. Instead a ball is round. Any other kind of statement is a logical fallacy.
    Last edited by XoX; 01-20-2008 at 12:55 AM. Reason: added some explanations for the story

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    all of these are really terrible.

  3. #3
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    all of these are really terrible.
    Explain yourself? (concentrate on the , part not the story). How would you define them instead?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the thing is i don't really agree with the way that you've presented the functions at all.

    Te information is not "this ball weighs 30 kg and has a radius of 5 m." that information could be considered Te, but it's a very poor example because its just a factoid and is not important.

    Te is much more easily considered under the guise of efficiency. a short example in the sort of way that you're looking for might be more along the lines of "this ball weighs 30 kg. it was produced by Michael & Sons. Co., which makes very cheap, quality balls. if one throws the ball at a window, for example, it is likely to break the window. however, a ball produced by the competing ball manufacturer BallCo. is generally made out of copper rather than aluminum, making it far less effective as a tool for breaking windows."

    or whatever.


    similarly, i see Ti as being more oriented towards categorical logic than subjective generalizations. subjective generalizations like "I believe in god" are a result and a manifestation of this categorical understanding.


    Ti likewise is

  5. #5
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    t
    Te information is not "this ball weighs 30 kg and has a radius of 5 m." that information could be considered Te, but it's a very poor example because its just a factoid and is not important.

    Te is much more easily considered under the guise of efficiency. a short example in the sort of way that you're looking for might be more along the lines of "this ball weighs 30 kg. it was produced by Michael & Sons. Co., which makes very cheap, quality balls. if one throws the ball at a window, for example, it is likely to break the window. however, a ball produced by the competing ball manufacturer BallCo. is generally made out of copper rather than aluminum, making it far less effective as a tool for breaking windows."
    Yes. I was actually trying to formulate something like this but in a shorter way. Te includes the statements about reality but more importantly the logic which combines the statements in an algoritmic way to come up with new statements about reality. .

    similarly, i see Ti as being more oriented towards categorical logic than subjective generalizations. subjective generalizations like "I believe in god" are a result and a manifestation of this categorical understanding.
    Hmm. I'm not sure about this. defines the premises (or checks whether the assumed premises are correct). Then validates whether all the statements are consistent with each other. If yes, then a working system has been created. It is not relevant whether God exists or not in reality. Only relevant is that the concept of God is well defined and it is consistently used across all statements.

    I'm not sure if we are that far apart. Anyways, I kind of think my approach itself is more oriented than yours. Or just less intuitive. Kind of smaller scale and more compact. Your is kinda vague but more about the big picture

    Edit:
    Anyways, somehow the difference in our approaches make it seem like I focus on a rather small part of the big picture and try to perfect that but the result in incomplete as it misses many things. E.g. the TeNi vs TeSi difference. I haven't consciously thought about how that relates to my "Te" description. And for some reason I have almost no subconsious awarenes of that. Almost like I'd lack in intuition.

  6. #6
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The Ti example still seems overly complicated, awkwardly phrased, and poorly constructed. Why are they voting to throw a rock into a river anyway? The content of the example seems to detract from what you are trying to convey about Ti.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX View Post
    Ne: The splash would be like a miniature version of a tsunami caused by a falling asteroid on the pacific ocean.
    In defense of this thread, your examples make sense not as definitions, but rather as your attempt to use each of the functions (it's like you're doing the exercise we did in NYC where you try to use each one of the functions).

    But I agree with niffweed that you're not completely succeeding here (in my opinion). I haven't read your whole post...I just notice though that the Ne one still sounds like Ni. It's picturing or imagining what the splash is like or what it reminds one of. It doesn't seem to me to be a good Ne example. Maybe it's Ni mixed with Ne though.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX View Post
    Hmm. I'm not sure about this. defines the premises (or checks whether the assumed premises are correct). Then validates whether all the statements are consistent with each other. If yes, then a working system has been created. It is not relevant whether God exists or not in reality. Only relevant is that the concept of God is well defined and it is consistently used across all statements.
    I would agree with that. that has a diametrically different flavor to what you have written above about "subjective, qualitative statements." it seems a lot closer to "categorical logic" than that.
    Last edited by niffweed17; 01-20-2008 at 02:52 AM. Reason: punctuation

  9. #9
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    The Ti example still seems overly complicated, awkwardly phrased, and poorly constructed. Why are they voting to throw a rock into a river anyway? The content of the example seems to detract from what you are trying to convey about Ti.
    Yes, it was an adhoc example I didn't think the context was important. I think it detracts many others way more than it does me. Interesting thing.

  10. #10
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX View Post
    Yes, it was an adhoc example I didn't think the context was important. I think it detracts many others way more than it does me. Interesting thing.
    Yes, but if your audience cannot understand what you are trying to get across, then obviously you may want to consider rewording it or coming up with a better showcase example.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  11. #11
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    No. Like niffweed said, I think that Ti is more oriented towards categorical logic than subjective generalizations. I don't think that "I am a Christian" and "I don't believe in God" are good representatives of Ti statements. Maybe something more like: "Taking 2 dollars from John and 3 dollars from Penny will give me 5 dollars and that will be enough to buy the carrots that are on display for $4.90."

    Correct me if I'm wrong though.
    I'm not sure. That's kind of a grey area to me. I thought that was better demonstrated with a more abstract system of thinking. For example logic can easily define God with whatever properties and then construct various logical statements using that concept. Pure would require God to be a real world measurable object/concept before it makes any sense to use it on logical statements. would concentrate on proving God exists "irl" and what are its "real" measurable qualities. would concentrate on whether the concept of God (however it is defined, measured or just defined in the abstract) is used consistently across logical statements. I'm not sure if this is completely consistent with everything I wrote before. But I'm developing this thought as I write.

  12. #12
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    In defense of this thread, your examples make sense not as definitions, but rather as your attempt to use each of the functions (it's like you're doing the exercise we did in NYC where you try to use each one of the functions).

    But I agree with niffweed that you're not completely succeeding here (in my opinion). I haven't read your whole post...I just notice though that the Ne one still sounds like Ni. It's picturing or imagining what the splash is like or what it reminds one of. It doesn't seem to me to be a good Ne example. Maybe it's Ni mixed with Ne though.
    Yes. I initially thought about making definitions but as everybody knows it is really hard as the functions are so abstract and because I don't grasp all aspects related to them. Thus I tried to make an example of the usage of each function. For me it is very natural to start with one or two examples and grasp the rule and meaning from there. Even if the rule is not explicitly visible.

    And to Logos, I agree that the arbitrarily selected examples and sloppy usage of language probably cause a lot of confusion. It is just kind of natural to me as my usage of language is naturally very sloppy. I was actually hoping for some help in that area

    Then about the example in the story. It might be ish. I was trying to make the difference where is more concerned with cause and effect relationships of events and focuses on abstract qualities of objects and phenomenon and thus is good at constructing new abstract objects through which they can see parallels between real world objects and phenomenon. I still don't grasp this well though. Might be wrong.

  13. #13
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX View Post
    And to Logos, I agree that the arbitrarily selected examples and sloppy usage of language probably cause a lot of confusion. It is just kind of natural to me as my usage of language is naturally very sloppy. I was actually hoping for some help in that area
    Sure. I'd be glad to help, but first I am going to have to sleep on it.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  14. #14
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One more thing. It might be beneficial to not try to define individual functions but stick with the blocks. I.e. define TeNi, TiNe, etc. Construct a "TiNe" statements and definitions instead of just "Ti" statements and definitions.

    Well functions can be discussed individually too but it would perhaps be easier to apply them to real world if they were discussed paired with other functions because that is how they always manifest. Similarly to how you can talk about protons and neutrons and electrons and their individual qualities but in many contexts it is more beneficial to talk about atoms and their qualities instead. Hmm, is there a parallel between chemistry and socionics? We would need some kind of "socionics periodic table" to create a common reference. And it should use 16 blocks instead of 8 functions as elements. So would type then be roughly comparable to a molecule? (Imho this kind of parallel thinking is more related to than btw.)

  15. #15
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Apparently there is a limitation on how many pictures I can put in my post, no more then 20.

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX View Post
    Te: This rock weights 200 pounds. A rock over 100 pounds is defined as being heavy. Thus this rock is a heavy rock. (evaluating the correctness of objectively verifiable logical statements and their logical consequences)
    Wrong. Facts are Se. Te is dynamic, it's noticing the changing of thing.

    Si: Lifting that rock will hurt your back for sure. (awareness of "inter body" cause and effect relationships)
    Wrong. That's Ti. Si is dynamic. Si would be noticing the rocks effects on it's surroundings.

    Se: Let's throw this rock to that fountain to cause a big splash of water. (will to do something and awareness of the direct effect of your actions)
    I'd say yes, the rock as an object.



    Ni: Throwing the rock could cause the fountain to break, people around it get all wet, someone call the police and us ending up in jail. Keep that in mind. (intuition of consequences, understanding long term cause and effect relations)
    I'd say yes, noticing the situation's effect on one's surroundings.


    Fe: Ending up in jail would make our parents very very angry and our school principal to black list us. (awareness of the emotional effect an event will have on people)
    Somewhat. Fe would be about noticing the changes in things however this seems to have Ni or Si as well, noticing the effects on one's surroundings. But one cannot use an element within using the full block so I'd say perhaps a more accurate portrayal of usage of Fe.

    Fi: I love huge splashes a lot but I hate jail even more. And I promised my parents to behave. I definately don't want to be a part of this. (stable subjective value system, moral firmness, loyalty)
    I'd say yes. Fi is realizing the personal rules in situations.

    Ne: The splash would be like a miniature version of a tsunami caused by a falling asteroid on the pacific ocean. It would be interesting to see. (intuition of conceptualization, awareness of the common abstract qualities of real world objects and phenomenon)
    I'd say yes. It is imagined/hypothesized facts about things.


    Ti: If any of you will vote for throwing the rock but are against making people wet then your values are contradictory, illogical and wrong. You have to be against both or for both in order to have a consistent value system. (awareness of the logical consistency of a system of thinking)
    I'd say yes. Ti is seeing the rules that govern situations. Although I would say that logical consistency is as much a part of Fi as is of Ti, just that Ti rules are taken to be unchangeable.

    is the logic of measurable, objective statements. "Black ball weights 5kg", "Blue ball weights 10kg", "Blue ball is heavier than black ball" are statements whose correctness can be objectively verified.
    Wrong. That is Se + Ti.


    is the logic of qualitative, subjective statements.
    Wrong. Subjectivity, objectivity have nothing to do with Ti.
    "I am a Christian", "I don't believe in God" are statements. The concepts used are not measurable but instead they are _defined_. As Christianity is defined to include a belief in one God then a statement "I am a Christian but I don't believe in God" is a logical fallacy and untrue. As a result is very good at modeling and manipulating philosophical systems and generally "systems of thinking".
    True but whether the statements are measurable or not, subjective or not depends on the nature of what is being defined, on whether we are using it with Ne or Se.

    You seem to be defining the difference between Te and Ti as the difference between Ti when blocked with Se and Ti when blocked by Ne.

    One more example. In logic you may say: "Let's define a cube shaped ball." That creates a system. Now the claim "A ball has eight corners" is true in this particular system.
    True but here I must say that again it depends on the nature of the system. You seem to think that Ti is all about Ne, or about things being hypothetically taken to be true instead of really taken to be true. But Ti can function in both worlds, with finding unchangeable rules that govern hypothetical reality and concrete reality. With the second case begin what you take to be Te.



    doesn't work with theoretical systems of thinking. Instead takes a real world object and names that object "a ball". So there is only one system of thinking which is the "reality". tries to make sure that everybody calls the same objects with the same names (i.e. tries to force everyone to use the same system of thinking). From a point of view "a ball" never has eight corners. Instead a ball is round. Any other kind of statement is a logical fallacy.
    This is completely wrong. This is completely Se + Ti. Also with Ti, even when blocked by Ne, there is always one system of thinking which is reality.

  16. #16
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX View Post
    Anyways here is the story...

    Te: This rock weights 200 pounds. A rock over 100 pounds is defined as being heavy. Thus this rock is a heavy rock. (evaluating the correctness of objectively verifiable logical statements and their logical consequences)
    This is not Te, it's Se and Ti. It's Se because you're talking about the physical state of the rock. It's Ti because of the system of measurement.

    Si: Lifting that rock will hurt your back for sure. (awareness of "inter body" cause and effect relationships)
    Yes. Physical/immediate cause and effect relationships.

    Se: Let's throw this rock to that fountain to cause a big splash of water. (will to do something and awareness of the direct effect of your actions)
    Eh... this is worded strangely, but if I had to pick one information element, it would definitely be Si.

    Ni: Throwing the rock could cause the fountain to break, people around it get all wet, someone call the police and us ending up in jail. Keep that in mind. (intuition of consequences, understanding long term cause and effect relations)
    Yes, though Si could see this as well. The cause and effect relationships isn't exactly abstract/beneath the surface all that far. Si would think of the police showing up there in a short amount of time and then spending that night in jail. Ni would think about more long term or far reaching consequences.

    Fe: Ending up in jail would make our parents very very angry and our school principal to black list us. (awareness of the emotional effect an event will have on people)
    Black list? I didn't know school principals did that.

    But yes, this is Fe... + Ni. (You're also talking about a less immediately apparent cause and effect relationship.)

    Fi: I love huge splashes a lot but I hate jail even more. And I promised my parents to behave. I definately don't want to be a part of this. (stable subjective value system, moral firmness, loyalty)
    Sort of. It could mean different things to different people in this situation. The simplest explanation would be something like "Destroying the personal property of others is wrong." Obviously there's more to Fi than that, but nothing's coming to mind atm in this example that doesn't also use other information elements.

    Ne: The splash would be like a miniature version of a tsunami caused by a falling asteroid on the pacific ocean. It would be interesting to see. (intuition of conceptualization, awareness of the common abstract qualities of real world objects and phenomenon)
    This isn't too bad, I think. (It's probably closer to Ne + Ti than Ne + Fi.) I don't really have any other suggestions at the moment. Ne is the Information Element that I understand least atm. (hmmmm Maybe that should be my next Information Aspect/Element thread.)

    Ti: If any of you will vote for throwing the rock but are against making people wet then your values are contradictory, illogical and wrong. You have to be against both or for both in order to have a consistent value system. (awareness of the logical consistency of a system of thinking)
    This could be Ti or Fi. Sounds more Fi-ish, actually. Ti might be something more like "That is illegal". Ti and Fi both have their own value systems, but with Ti it's based on external (measurable, readily apparent, immediately observable, etc.) things, and with Fi it's based on internal (beneath the surface, unseen, immeasurable, etc.) things.

    is the logic of measurable, objective statements. "Black ball weights 5kg", "Blue ball weights 10kg", "Blue ball is heavier than black ball" are statements whose correctness can be objectively verified. As a result is very good at modeling and manipulating objective reality.
    Again, Se and Ti. Se in that you're describing the ball in and of itself. Ti in that you're using a system of measurement and looking at the external relationship between the two balls.

    It's important to remember that Te is dynamic. The things you're describing as Te are static.

    is the logic of qualitative, subjective statements. "I am a Christian", "I don't believe in God" are statements. The concepts used are not measurable but instead they are _defined_. As Christianity is defined to include a belief in one God then a statement "I am a Christian but I don't believe in God" is a logical fallacy and untrue. As a result is very good at modeling and manipulating philosophical systems and generally "systems of thinking".
    Eh, sort of. Fi would know it's beliefs without having to classify them in a system such as an organized religion. Organized religion is Ti > Fi, and belief or disbelief in God could be related to Fi or Ti, depending on why the person believes what (s)he believes.

    One more example. In logic you may say: "Let's define a cube shaped ball." That creates a system. Now the claim "A ball has eight corners" is true in this particular system.
    I don't know about that. That doesn't sound Ti to me.

    doesn't work with theoretical systems of thinking. Instead takes a real world object and names that object "a ball". So there is only one system of thinking which is the "reality". tries to make sure that everybody calls the same objects with the same names (i.e. tries to force everyone to use the same system of thinking). From a point of view "a ball" never has eight corners. Instead a ball is round. Any other kind of statement is a logical fallacy.
    This sounds more like Ti than Te. Ti is static, Te is dynamic. Ti is about logical systems. Te is about logical activities, in a way. And both Ti and Te would demand that you not call a ball a cube. However, if one was to be more lenient about that than the other, I think Te would be the more lenient. Te might be willing to call something by another name for the sake of that conversation if it will help to accomplish the objective at hand, as long as everyone involved understands what's being talked about.

    (i.e. tries to force everyone to use the same system of thinking)
    No. Not at all.

    Te is concerned with semantics only to ensure effective (and therefore efficient) communication.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  17. #17
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok. It seems I still don't grasp much at all. is dynamic and I'm trying to force it to be static. I have to be rather static and rather > myself. I see now why there have been vs confusion around here (ESTp vs ENTj). It is a problem for me too. It seems I have problems with other dynamic functions as well.

    I'm starting to love this thread. One additional thing, for some reason snegs answer seems rather ish... But I won't say it as apparently I don't quite get yet.

  18. #18
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX View Post
    One additional thing, for some reason snegs answer seems rather ish... But I won't say it as apparently I don't quite get yet.
    I think that's because joy's response "mirrored" mine, and you think of her as LIE.

    Regarding your type, for some strange reason, recently I think you're the same type as minde. For some reason I keep associating her with you, that is, when she writes I think of you, as if you wrote it. Don't know why that is.

  19. #19
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Eh, sort of. Fi would know it's beliefs without having to classify them in a system such as an organized religion. Organized religion is Ti > Fi, and belief or disbelief in God could be related to Fi or Ti, depending on why the person believes what (s)he believes.
    I'm not sure if I would agree with that generalization.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  20. #20
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX View Post
    Ok. It seems I still don't grasp much at all. is dynamic and I'm trying to force it to be static. I have to be rather static and rather > myself. I see now why there have been vs confusion around here (ESTp vs ENTj). It is a problem for me too. It seems I have problems with other dynamic functions as well.

    I'm starting to love this thread. One additional thing, for some reason snegs answer seems rather ish... But I won't say it as apparently I don't quite get yet.
    Then perhaps imagine more as a news story that is giving you a dynamic picture as to what is happening or has been done.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  21. #21
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    I'm not sure if I would agree with that generalization.
    Certainly not all Ti types are a part of an organized religion, and not all people in organized religion are Ti/Fi types. However, calling oneself Baptist is a Ti statement.

    But this has already been debated. I can try to find that thread if you're interested.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  22. #22
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Certainly not all Ti types are a part of an organized religion, and not all people in organized religion are Ti/Fi types. However, calling oneself Baptist is a Ti statement.

    But this has already been debated. I can try to find that thread if you're interested.
    No need. I get it now.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  23. #23
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Somewhat. The aspect in which it seems Ti is in that it makes a categorical statement with presumed dogmatic meaning behind the label itself.

    I just would not be so quick to say that Ti = Organized Religion. Certainly Ti plays a large part in organizing the formation of a religion, but to simply say that Organized Religion = Ti strips the complexity of religion and overplays the roles of certain functions within religion and makes it too quick to dismiss the "evils of organized religion" upon Ti. No institution is solely one function, but a complex mechanism of different aspects of reality playing a part in maintaining, expanding, and improving it from within.

    It just seems somewhat odd to see Alpha organizing a religion per se, as the functions associated with Alpha are very "raw," for lack of a better word, in regards to life. puts them in the present and keeps them focused on the abstract potential and possibilities. While blocked with may be associated to some degree with religious experience, so can and potentially . The blocked with of Alpha redirects their to more conceptual pursuits, though the may be used to try and potentially understand and categorize the dogma and critically examine, analyze and interpret text. Beta would perhaps be more of the institution builders in the sense that there is a long-term orientation with through physical realities of that would allow them to organize institutional hierarchies, rules, and procedures. Then the plus also would be a contributor to the religious experience of Beta. But even then, one should not be quick to discount the potential ways in which organized religion could be developed from Gamma and Delta perspectives.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  24. #24
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    Yes, I agree. I'm just wondering ... say we think of "I am a Christian" as a Ti statement obtained from a pre-list of other Ti statements, right. Compare with the example: X = 2 and Y = 3 so X + Y = 5, where X is the money John gives me and Y is the money Penny gives me to buy carrots. X and Y are like "objective" variables. I can obtain the statement "I have 5 dollars" from a pre-list of other Ti statements based on these "objective" variables, such as "I obtained 3 dollars from Penny" and "I obtained 2 dollars from John". So back to the "I am a Christian" example, what are the "objective" variables as far as religion goes? That's my problem with accepting a statement "I am a Christian" as a Ti statement. (I can understand that my definition of Ti might just be too narrow though.)
    So what do you suspect it is? ? The person forms a bond or attachment to a label with which they identify?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  25. #25
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Then perhaps imagine more as a news story that is giving you a dynamic picture as to what is happening or has been done.
    Ok. So let's take an example. An engine. would be to give a detailed description of each part of the engine and how they are connected to each other in a static structure. Using very concrete terms.

    would be more about understanding the dynamics of the same engine when it is running? Perhaps so that would have a very concrete understanding of the engine dynamics and describe it with very concrete terms where would be more focused on some kind of "conceptual engine" or something.
    I don't quite get the vs difference here.

    Then would describe the engine as some kind of static and abstract system. Not talking about "engine" but instead some abstraction of it.

    So as was asked in the first post of this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=16322
    what exactly makes connected to "domination", "willpower" etc more than e.g. . just seems like something static and concrete where is dynamic and concrete.

    If you think about enneagram correlations then might as well be 8 and might be 7. This wouldn't in anyways support being somehow more "domineering" than e.g. . Perhaps more "flashy" as it is more "on the spot" function being highly concrete and static and highly aware of everything around it in a static real world setting. Making it able to react to any concrete changes in the static environment around it almost instantly. Te would be more proactive and controlling. Thus also more domineering.

    Edit: In the above I don't make difference between mirror types i.e. when I say SeTi I just mean using Se and Ti together. Be it SeTi or TiSe and so on.
    Last edited by XoX; 01-21-2008 at 07:13 PM.

Posting Permissions

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