Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: + vs -

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default + vs -

    + sees the subject first, then the object.

    - sees the object first, then the subject.

    Make sense?

    For example, EIE sees their own emotional state first (the subject), which they intend to impress against the -Fe emotional state of the people around them. (the object)

  2. #2
    xyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,709
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, it doesn't make sense.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LokiVanguard View Post
    No, it doesn't make sense.
    Don't tell me that. Tell me why it doesn't make sense to you.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    could it be generalized to process(+) vs. result(-)?
    Process? Result? Those words mean nothing. (or if they mean anything, they have nothing directly to do with process or result, the same problem as with most of the Reinin dichotomies). These one-word dichotomous descriptions are intolerably inefficient.

  5. #5
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, it doesn't make sense. Xi sees the subject, Xe sees the object. You're making all the functions do all things now, and that's nonsensical and pretty pointless.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic View Post
    No, it doesn't make sense. Xi sees the subject, Xe sees the object. You're making all the functions do all things now, and that's nonsensical and pretty pointless.
    The information aspects are quite rigidly defined. Bottom line is, an ENFj will not know their internal Fe state by means of Fi.

    Fe = INTERNAL dynamics of OBJECTS

    Nor did I say anything at all about introversion vs extroversion; I said only that '+' looks at the subject FIRST and THEN the object, and that '-' looks at the OBJECT first as that which it NOT ONESELF, and THEN the SUBJECT.

    Let's try EII. "If my motive is X (Fi+), other people will feel Y towards me. (Fi-)"

  7. #7
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, there's so many different uses of the terms "subject" and "object" that it's hard to keep up sometimes.

    "Let's try EII. "If my motive is X (Fi+), other people will feel Y towards me. (Fi-)""

    Um, so an ESI individual would think "other people will feel Y towards me if my motive is X?" I don't really think the process is any different in that case; the two can't be separated. It seems like an indistinguishable distinction, ie not a distinction at all. Or, you could be saying that "other people feel Y towards me, therefore my motive is X," but that's just bizarre and I doubt there's a large segment of people who think like that.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic View Post
    Ok, there's so many different uses of the terms "subject" and "object" that it's hard to keep up sometimes.

    "Let's try EII. "If my motive is X (Fi+), other people will feel Y towards me. (Fi-)""

    Um, so an ESI individual would think "other people will feel Y towards me if my motive is X?" I don't really think the process is any different in that case; the two can't be separated. It seems like an indistinguishable distinction, ie not a distinction at all. Or, you could be saying that "other people feel Y towards me, therefore my motive is X," but that's just bizarre and I doubt there's a large segment of people who think like that.
    You're close. What you need though, is a 180 degree turn.

    "Other people seem to have these motives, all of which repulse me completely." Now to understand what the motives ARE, you've gotta look into the Fe which is engendering them.

    Let's try, "The way other people think about person Y (-Fe) has led him to the pursuit of motive X. (+Fi) I find this self serving in the extreme: Y is so absorbed in changing the way people think about him, (+Fe) he is failing to aspire to the higher ideals of society and this is a blight on his character. (-Fi)"

    Or something like that. Implied, would you care to comment as to the veracity of this example?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK, here's something interesting. Take the ESI above, and then put -Fe in the background instead of +Fe. In that case you still get a sense of dislike from the ESI, but instead of them regarding the subjective state of another person with contempt, they charge the entire surrounding emotional situation (-Fe) as the culprit.

    For example, let's say the ESI chose NOT to blame the person themselves for their ethical shortcomings; instead, they blamed the environment which pressured them into committing unethical behavior. (peer pressure) Now unless you have the capacity to see the world as a whole as reponsible for the unethicality observed, you invariably "blame the victim". Are you following me with this?

    If Model-B holds true in all cases, then the observation of peer pressure cannot even be made. And yet we know for a fact that peer pressure exists, because studies have shown it to; meaning that Model-B is NOT the whole story.

Posting Permissions

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