Results 1 to 40 of 51

Thread: It is impossible to describe a function without traits or characteristics

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default It is impossible to describe a function without traits or characteristics

    I don't understand why people think that this is possible. Its not, simply put. You can't describe something without using traits or characteristics. There very well could be some intuitive presence behind it, but it is impossible to explain because it is INTUITIVE.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  2. #2
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In describing characteristics of a person who has the function, one must not get too caught up in looking at the trees and forgetting about the forest. The actual essences of functions are not tangible traits, however by looking at various traits WITHIN THEIR PROPER CONTEXTS, we can get a feel for how a set of functions are influences the way a person goes about doing what they do. It will even influence WHAT they do - but the context must be always considered when analyzing what a person does.

    In terms of talking about general trends: For example, I've found Se people to be edgier and generally more intense than Si people. However this does not mean that the definition of the function Se is "intensity". Another thing I've found with Se people is that their eyes frequently seem to dart around from point to point, whereas Si people have a steadier look. Even here, we cannot define Se as "eyes darting around" - however this does get closer to hinting at what Se really is. To find out more what the nature of the function is, we have to look at what could be causing this intensity, or the eyes darting around, etc, and blend all of these things into a perceptual whole, to get a feel for the abstract essence of the function that seems to be influencing it.

    We can now look to the information elements, once we have formed our perceptual whole from the various "traits" we've seen in Se people.

    Se = External Object Statics

    It is an object function - that's EXTREMELY important. Objects in perception are defined as things that are separate from the observer. Objects are separate entities each and of themselves. Therefore, when a person uses an object function (Se, Ne, Te, Fe), the person is looking at one object, then moving on to the next object, leaving the previous one behind. In other words, there will be a disconnectedness between objects (since we are not examining fields).

    So now, to Se specifically: Se is a perceiving object function (just like Ne - while Te and Fe are judging object functions). So what does this particular object perceiving function examine? It looks at the externals - things within the environment - things directly as they are in their static state (perceiving functions take in information in a passive way, while with judging functions there is more of a deliberateness and altering of information).

    So therefore, Se is an object function that examines things externally (which is what a sensing function does). However, since Se is an object function, its going to examine different things in an object by object matter. It looks for external stimulation in one thing, then throws it aside and moves on to something else - object by object.

    So now we bring in our observation of "traits". If we've noticed that Se people tend to have darting eyes (at least moreso than Si people), and that they tend to be more intense than Si people, we can begin to tie in why. If someone is constantly looking for new external stimulus, then that would seem to tie in with darting eyes, scanning the external environment on the prowl for new stimulus. Also, in constantly seeking new stimulus, an Se person does not let the external environment develop and build on itself, so from an Si person's perspective, the Se person seems to frequently disrupting the building-upon that the Si person is experiencing with THEIR sensating. To an Si person, an Se person could seem bursty, jolty (almost like a jolt of electricity), up and down, etc. This all again ties back to how an Se person jumps from one external thing to another, object by object, disconnected, no smooth harmonious flow, the way there is with Si types.

    This is an example of getting to the root of what a function does by looking at traits within the greater picture, and seeing how the traits stem from the information elements that are the essence of functions. Yes, there are traits, but the traits themselves do not define the functions.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    I don't understand why people think that this is possible. Its not, simply put. You can't describe something without using traits or characteristics. There very well could be some intuitive presence behind it, but it is impossible to explain because it is INTUITIVE.
    No, you're just stupid. It's possible to be explain functions, types, the dynamics of them, and to observe their presence in the real world. All without appeal to the asinine characteristics you claim. Like, "HURRR, ALL DELTAS AND GAMMAS ARE OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE AND CONFORMISTS TO SOCIETY!#@*($" Or however you phrase the dumb shit you say. Please die.

  4. #4
    Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,168
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's bullshit, hitta. IM elements are described without talking about characteristics as such. When you talk about blocks, like ego blocks, then of course traits and characteristics are important; because they are what make blocks. But IM elements are simply about "external static elements" and "internal dynamic elements" etc. Do you see any sign of characteristics or traits of people described there? No, nor do I.

  5. #5
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Angus View Post
    No, you're just stupid. It's possible to be explain functions, types, the dynamics of them, and to observe their presence in the real world. All without appeal to the asinine characteristics you claim. Like, "HURRR, ALL DELTAS AND GAMMAS ARE OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE AND CONFORMISTS TO SOCIETY!#@*($" Or however you phrase the dumb shit you say. Please die.
    Actually Gammas aren't obsessive compulsive at all. They take care of their routine hygiene and lifestyles in a very collective and very routine manner. Obsessive compulsives are usually Alphas and Deltas. Delta feelers are obsessive compulsive in different ways. They tend to worry about their own morality and perfection.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  6. #6
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    well, I challenge someone to describe it without a trait or a characteristic. I'm telling you its not possible. This is simple sociology. You can't describe something without language(traits and characteristics). The human mind cannot think without language, everything is connected to language. To describe something you actually have to describe it lol.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  7. #7
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    well, I challenge someone to describe it without a trait or a characteristic. I'm telling you its not possible. This is simple sociology. You can't describe something without language(traits and characteristics). The human mind cannot think without language, everything is connected to language. To describe something you actually have to describe it lol.
    See my above post

  8. #8
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    See my above post
    Your whole article is nothing but traits. You say that Se=External Object Statics. Isn't that a trait; a description or characteristic of what it is? You are giving 3 traits; that it is external static and object. These are just descriptions. You in no way have shown the true intuitive intentions of Se. You have just described the intentions. Thought in general requires language. You can't think without words or pictures to symbolize something. Functions are no different.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  9. #9
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    okay my point was that yes there are traits that do have some connections to functions, as long as their used in the right way.

    So my point was, why do you keep claiming that people think that you can't connect functions to any traits? I described certain traits in my post, and linked how they could be tied to a function. I don't have a problem with correlating traits to functions, as long as it's done in the right way.

    And what exactly are these "intuitive intentions" of Se that you mention?

  10. #10
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    okay my point was that yes there are traits that do have some connections to functions, as long as their used in the right way.

    So my point was, why do you keep claiming that people think that you can't connect functions to any traits? I described certain traits in my post, and linked how they could be tied to a function. I don't have a problem with correlating traits to functions, as long as it's done in the right way.

    And what exactly are these "intuitive intentions" of Se that you mention?
    Having a -Se/+Si ego function means that you are going to have a +Ne/-Ni agenda function. -Se/+Si is about going against the balance of force, to makes a rebellious stint. +Ne/-Ni is about originality. Using some deduction one could see that these are connected. If one is rebellious he will have an unconscious need to do things creatively(a deduction). If one is normally into originality and stuff, unconsciously they will have a motive to rebel against things. Its very easy to see, I don't get why people are acting like this is some sort of mathematical explanation uncovered from a UFO that crashed in Roswell.

    And btw, I never said that traits couldn't be used to explain functions, thats what I've been arguing. Traits and characteristics are the only way to describe a function. Functions have to be a combination of traits, because everything is traits. Some people prefer originality, some people prefer normalness. Each person has to prefer one at a given time. Come on people, this is the whole essence of being a personality theorist, to understand what a person likes and dislikes. That is what personality is. A person has to value either a +/- version of a function. +Ni is normalness; routine; etc. -Ni is originality; singularity; novelty. Everyone is one of them at a given time.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  11. #11
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    I don't understand why people think that this is possible. Its not, simply put. You can't describe something without using traits or characteristics. There very well could be some intuitive presence behind it, but it is impossible to explain because it is INTUITIVE.
    The problem is A) you do not define or describe traits, B) you do not list traits, and C) you do not give any justification as to why certain traits are attached to particular functions.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  12. #12
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I need to find this article 16-компонентная модель ТИМа и социона
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  13. #13
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok cool, thanks. This way we can finally discuss the roots of the thought process and evaluate it.

Posting Permissions

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