Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 112

Thread: Setting it Straight

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

    Default Setting it Straight

    There seems to be an issue as to how some people here view functions. But the issue is that regardless of what model is used, all definitions of the functions are supposedly based off of the same fundamental concepts - the information elements. These information elements as they relate to the functions were originally put together by Aushra, who blended Carl Jung's functions and Antoni Kepinski's information metabolism. The functions are ways of experiencing reality - this is something that are supposed to remain the same no-matter what model you use.

    Strrrng, I and a few others who supposedly have "different" understandings than the majority of the 16types, speak from an information element perspective - the essence of socionics itself. Aushra, the founder of so called "classical socionics" devised these information elements herself. Unfortuantely Model A has a lot of shortcomings, including the idea that a person can/will directly experience functions outside of their quadra. This is a total contradiction with the fundamentals of socionics, because Aushra herself incorporated the idea of information metabolism from Kepinsky, who discussed the idea of metabolism as it related to cells. One of the most fundamental principles was that there were certain elements that were beneficial to the cell and promoted healthy functioning, while others interfered and slowed down healthy normal functioning. This is exactly the case with socionics information elements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikisocion
    Augusta viewed the psyche as a structure that continually perceives and selects relevant information from its environment and conveys information back to its environment at the same time.
    For each type there are certain information elements that provide healthy feedback cycles and normal functioning (the "relevant" information), while other elements/information directly interfere and put strain on the person's natural information processing. Saying that I, as an ENTp use Te is like trying to put diesel fuel in a car that is designed for unleaded premium. It just doesn't work. It causes the engine to strain and function poorly and unhealthily. Te to me lacks inherent structure and seems to have no base whatsoever - it's ungrounded to me. Whenever I encounter Te expression, I always need to translate it into my own language and find an inherent link between the nodes of Te strolling on the edge.

    A person can/will never experience non-quadra functions directly because they simply are detrimental to a person's natural information processing - the person will only react to them.

    That's it - end of story. That is a fundamental principle of socionics that Aushra herself incorporated from Kepinski - so I'd be entertained to see it called "non-classical". If Model A actually believes that you "work to get better at" some non-quadra functions, or that you can actually experience and perform your "Id" functions or whatever, then it needs to be trashed. It just doesn't work.

  2. #2
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are you able to remember your own age without somebody telling you? If so, you are using Te.

  3. #3
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol tell me ur not serious

  4. #4
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotelambush
    Are you able to remember your own age without somebody telling you? If so, you are using Te.
    wow lol. So, Te is remembering facts? NO. Functions aren't about the actions which a person performs; they are about the method by which they perform the act. Show a fact to a Ti person and he will incorporate it into his internal structure.

  5. #5
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    I think you inject some words here that are fairly irrelevant.

    "experience and perform"
    "work to get better at"

    I'm not sure these are used in the proper context or meaningfulness.
    People on here have made the very claim that your "Role Function" is something you try to get better at, and have tried to cite examples of people supposedly using their id functions.

  6. #6
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Te is about what works
    Si is about working as little as possible

  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 Bionicgoat View Post
    Te is about what works
    Si is about working as little as possible
    lol

  8. #8
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    There seems to be an issue as to how some people here view functions. But the issue is that regardless of what model is used, all definitions of the functions are supposedly based off of the same fundamental concepts - the information elements.
    I appreciate you explaining this. I always thought that you placed emphasis on subtypes to help you type people more accurately...

    If what you posted is your understanding of Socionics, I have a critique of it, which I hope you'll take in the spirit that it's intended, (constructive.)

    To me, it seems that you're placing an awful lot of emphasis on the most obtuse, most theoretically weak (pseudo-science-y) characteristic of Socionics, i.e. the theoretical modeling of information elements.

    The most compelling, useful characteristic of Socionics is this: there are identifiable types of people, (who can be described as XXXx and the relationships between these types of people can be identified as a type of interaction (intertype relations,) which can be accurately described and even to a degree, understood.

    The theoretical modeling of information elements should serve the aim of Socionics' most compelling, useful characteristics... And this is not a huge bone of contention, but nonetheless: your post seems to place unnecessary emphasis/attention on the Info elements (which are models,) to the detriment of reality. For example, let's examine a quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    "Unfortuantely Model A has a lot of shortcomings, including the idea that a person can/will directly experience functions outside of their quadra."
    I'm not sure whether this came out the way that you intended, so I guess I'll just ask that you clarify it before I address it thoroughly... In brief though, this connotes (actually, at the end of your post, you straight-up denote,) that one cannot receive positive benefits from IM elements other than those valued by one's quadra... In other words, only four elements can potentially benefit each individual, whereas the other four will reap effects that are always somehow negative.

    This understanding ignores reality in favor of a too literal interpretation of a theoretical model that is, at very best, flawed... As a ENFp, Fe is not one of my quadra values--to say that Fe cannot somehow benefit a ENFp is pretty inaccurate, I believe... Beyond that, your understanding isn't a hell of a lot different--it just places what some, I imagine, would consider to be unnecessary emphasis on the IM elements, to the detriment of the gestalt of the theory

    No personal offense intended at all... I like you dude. Peace.

  9. #9
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BG
    Te is about what works
    Si is about working as little as possible
    loll

  10. #10
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    wow lol. So, Te is remembering facts? NO. Functions aren't about the actions which a person performs; they are about the method by which they perform the act.
    You're right, functions are about this, but information elements are not.

    Show a fact to a Ti person and he will incorporate it into his internal structure.
    Again, everybody has a belief system, whether they "are" Ti or not.

  11. #11
    xyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,709
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat View Post
    Te is about what works
    Si is about working as little as possible
    give this man a prize!

  12. #12
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu View Post
    I appreciate you explaining this. I always thought that you placed emphasis on subtypes to help you type people more accurately...

    If what you posted is your understanding of Socionics, I have a critique of it, which I hope you'll take in the spirit that it's intended, (constructive.)

    To me, it seems that you're placing an awful lot of emphasis on the most obtuse, most theoretically weak (pseudo-science-y) characteristic of Socionics, i.e. the theoretical modeling of information elements.

    The most compelling, useful characteristic of Socionics is this: there are identifiable types of people, (who can be described as XXXx and the relationships between these types of people can be identified as a type of interaction (intertype relations,) which can be accurately described and even to a degree, understood.

    The theoretical modeling of information elements should serve the aim of Socionics' most compelling, useful characteristics... And this is not a huge bone of contention, but nonetheless: your post seems to place unnecessary emphasis/attention on the Info elements (which are models,) to the detriment of reality. For example, let's examine a quote:



    I'm not sure whether this came out the way that you intended, so I guess I'll just ask that you clarify it before I address it thoroughly... In brief though, this connotes (actually, at the end of your post, you straight-up denote,) that one cannot receive positive benefits from IM elements other than those valued by one's quadra... In other words, only four elements can potentially benefit each individual, whereas the other four will reap effects that are always somehow negative.

    This understanding ignores reality in favor of a too literal interpretation of a theoretical model that is, at very best, flawed... As a ENFp, Fe is not one of my quadra values--to say that Fe cannot somehow benefit a ENFp is pretty inaccurate, I believe... Beyond that, your understanding isn't a hell of a lot different--it just places what some, I imagine, would consider to be unnecessary emphasis on the IM elements, to the detriment of the gestalt of the theory

    No personal offense intended at all... I like you dude. Peace.
    None taken - it's all good bro

    Yes, the argument/logic I presented was based on theory, but that's because there really isn't a real justification as to why the information elements are the way they are concretely.

    I do only believe that there are four aspects to SOCIONICS reality - T, N, S, F. Each person has one of each, and a specific pair of either Ti/Fe or Te/Fi, and Ne/Si or Ni/Se. Each functional pair is the way it is because Ti is the opposite of Fe (External field statics vs Internal Object Dynamics), and Ne the opposite of Si (Internal Static Objects vs External Field Dynamics) etc. Things in the universe come in pairs, in dual-opposites. Just like magnets, opposites attract (and generally the case with most living creatures and gender attraction).

    Things that are too similar get rejected and there are repulsive forces. With me, I look at static objects internally (Ne), and when there's Se thrown at me (external static objects), it's like trying to fill the same static object space in my mind with something that doesn't belong - and it feels foreign and I have a natural repulsion to it.

    I place so much emphasis on the information elements because they are not simply a theoretical concept; they are very real and observable in people. For example, even in your own writing you can see a Te way of processing and articulating T-ish stuff:

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu
    I'm not sure whether this came out the way that you intended, so I guess I'll just ask that you clarify it before I address it thoroughly... In brief though, this connotes (actually, at the end of your post, you straight-up denote,) that one cannot receive positive benefits from IM elements other than those valued by one's quadra... In other words, only four elements can potentially benefit each individual, whereas the other four will reap effects that are always somehow negative.
    The way you make a point takes an idea and rolls it along forward, extracting and evolving, and that's the way Te works (External Dynamic Objects - rolling from point to point kind of in a moving line). This is particularly evident in Expat's writing.

    Whereas my writing has a much more outward expansive quality to it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    There seems to be an issue as to how some people here view functions. But the issue is that regardless of what model is used, all definitions of the functions are supposedly based off of the same fundamental concepts - the information elements. These information elements as they relate to the functions were originally put together by Aushra, who blended Carl Jung's functions and Antoni Kepinski's information metabolism. The functions are ways of experiencing reality - this is something that are supposed to remain the same no-matter what model you use.
    The concept of Ti (External Field Statics) fits my expression perfectly. I start with a foundation, then build on top of it and expand outward, usually referring back to the original base.

    Also check out some of Thomas Jefferson's (Ti) writing versus that of George Washington (Te). You'll notice a clear difference and I think one will seem easier to read and more natural to you while the other seems foreign and requires more effort to process.

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

    Default

    Here's a letter of Thomas Jefferson's:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jefferson
    MONTICELLO, February 14, 1824.

    DEAR SIR, -- I have to thank you for the copy of Colonel Taylor's New Views of the Constitution and shall read them with the satisfaction and edification which I have ever derived from whatever he has written. But I fear it is the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Those who formerly usurped the name of federalists, which, in fact, they never were, have now openly abandoned it, and are as openly marching by the road of construction, in a direct line to that consolidation which was always their real object. They, almost to a man, are in possession of one branch of the government, and appear to be very strong in yours. The three great questions of amendment now before you, will give the measure of their strength. I mean, 1st, the limitation of the term of the Presidential service; 2d, the placing the choice of President effectually in the hands of the people; 3d, the giving to Congress the power of internal improvement, on condition that each State's federal proportion of the moneys so expended, shall be employed within the State. The friends of consolidation would rather take these powers by construction than accept them by direct investiture from the States.

    Yet, as to internal improvement particularly, there is probably not a State in the Union which would not grant the power on the condition proposed, or which would grant it without that. The best general key for the solution of questions of power between our governments, is the fact that "every foreign and federal power is given to the federal government, and to the States every power purely domestic." I recollect but one instance of control vested in the federal, over the State authorities, in a matter purely domestic, which is that of metallic tenders. The federal is, in truth, our foreign government, which department alone is taken from the sovereignty of the separate States.

    The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation, until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy. Here it will be by large fragments breaking off, and refusing re-union but on condition of amendment, or perhaps permanently. If I can see these three great amendments prevail, I shall consider it as a renewed extension of the term of our lease, shall live in more confidence, and die in more hope. And I do trust that the republican mass, which Colonel Taylor justly says is the real federal one, is still strong enough to carry these truly federo- republican amendments. With my prayers for the issue, accept my friendly and respectful salutations.
    Here's one of Washington's Letters:

    Quote Originally Posted by Washington
    To Governor George Clinton
    Head Quarters, Valley Forge, February 16, 1778

    Dear Sir: It is with great reluctance, I trouble you on a subject, which does not fall within your province; but it is a subject that occasions me more distress, than I have felt, since the commencement of the war; and which loudly demands the most zealous exertions of every person of weight and authority, who is interested in the success of our affairs. I mean the present dreadful situation of the army for want of provisions, and the miserable prospects before us, with respect to futurity. It is more alarming than you will probably conceive, for, to form a just idea, it were necessary to be on the spot. For some days past, there has been little less, than a famine in camp. A part of the army has been a week, without any kind of flesh, and the rest for three or four days. Naked and starving as they are, we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of the soldiery, that they have not been ere this excited by their sufferings, to a general mutiny or dispersion. Strong symptoms, however, discontent have appeared in particular instances; and nothing but the most acitive efforts every where can long avert so shocking a catastrophe.

    Our present sufferings are not all. There is no foundation laid for any adequate relief hereafter. All the magazines provided in the States of New Jersey, Pensylvania, Delaware and Maryland, and all the immediate additional supplies they seem capable of affording, will not be sufficient to support the army more than a month longer, if so long. Very little has been done to the Eastward, and as little to the Southward; and whatever we have a right to expect from those quarters, must necessarily be very remote; and is indeed more precarious, than could be wished. When the forementioned supplies are exhausted, what a terrible crisis must ensue, unless all the energy of the Continent is exerted to provide a timely remedy?

    Impressed with this idea, I am, on my part, putting every engine to work, that I can possibly think of, to prevent the fatal consequences, we have so great a reason to apprehend. I am calling upon all those, whose stations and influence enable them to contribute their aid upons so important an occasion; and from your well known zeal, I expect every thing within the compass of your power, and that the abilities and resources of the state over which you preside, will admit. I am sensible of the disadvantages it labours under, from having been so long the scene of war, and that it must be exceedingly drained by the great demands to which it has been subject. But, tho' you may not be able to contribute materially to our relief, you can perhaps do something towards it; and any assistance, however trifling in itself, will be of great moment at so critical a juncture, and will conduce to keeping the army together till the Commissary's department can be put upon a better footing, and effectual measures concerted to secure a permanent and competent supply. What methods you can take, you will be the best judge of; but, if you can devise any means to procure a quantity of cattle, or other kind of flesh, for the use of this army, to be at camp in the course of a month, you will render a most essential service to the common cause. I have the honor etc.
    There's a clear difference. As I was reading it just now Washington's writing has a striking resemblance to Expat's. Jefferson's actually reminds me of Carl Jung's - they both may be Ni INFp, not positive though, but Jefferson is definitely Ti.

    With Jefferson you can see his immersion within a field (try imagining that, and it'll make sense). He has this attachment and it's like the idea he's getting at is literally surrounding him, whereas with Washington things seem neatly wrapped up into trimmed idea balls that roll along, one into the next, as if he's looking AT what he's conveying, watching it evolve over time, as opposed to looking THROUGH something that grows outward.

    The information elements are very real and observable in people, but of course they're abstract things. However just because it's abstract doesn't mean it's any less real. Is loving a person any less real than being able to tell that they're tall or have brown hair?

  14. #14
    Suomea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    TIM
    ILE-Ti
    Posts
    1,054
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ....
    Last edited by Suomea; 09-27-2008 at 05:46 PM.
    Suomea

  15. #15
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suomea View Post
    After meeting you, I would have probably typed you as an INTj. You specifically have pretty stable Ti and an extreme preference for it over Te. You also seem to have a Si HA compared with a Fe hidden agenda. These were just my observations in relation to myself though.

    However, according to "Ashton"'s model, which you go by, you would attribute these characteristics to you being a Ti subtype of ENTp. It's a fair claim, and very well might be possible, but in any event your functions seem to be set up much more like a Model A INTj than a Model A ENTp. That being the case I wouldn't mind hearing you create a similar diesel fuel argument for your Ne and Ni.

    In terms of myself I don't feel like I have a problem with Te like you say you do. My Ni on the other hand very well may act similar to that.... on the day you weren't there for the Socionic's get together I was given a Ni task which I completely translated to Ne, and semi ignored the Ni purpose of it.
    Regarding your impressions of me - an important thing to take into account is my being a 6w5 enneagram. 6w5s come off as much more introspective than do 6w7s or even 3s (It's important to take in all the factors that can affect a person, socionics is just one aspect). However even though I came across as reserved in one particular social context (meeting random people from an online forum lol), once you get to know me I'm much more outgoing and playfully engaging. I just need to form a connection. Also, my energy flow is extremely outwardly focused and am much more aware of what's going on outside of me than an introvert would be. Compare me to someone like Mysticsonic, Ms. Kensington, or Hitta who are Ti INTj and there's a clear difference. Also, INTjs are much more controlled and even somewhat rigid in the extreme, whereas I as a direction-less EP am searching for that dynamic flow I can ride on to guide me, and use my Ne and Ti to try to find and create that flow. Yes, I am probably more introspective than other Ti ENTps even, but that's a personality thing.

    With Fe, I crave it and am extremely energized by it. I literally need it as a constant gauge as to where things stand, especially in interpersonal contexts, and of course I am readily aware of the moods that exist - I can recognize and pick up Fe quite adeptly, since I need it to truly feel alive.

    In terms of my experience with Ni: When Ni people say things I don't personally have a huge issue with it, but I still can't really let it sit in it's raw form. I'm pretty much the way you described for yourself. When an Ni person gives an impression, it's very general and seemingly suspended to me. I always find myself trying to find an aspect of it to latch onto and find a context within my experience to draw parallels to. I do this a lot when I talk with Strrrng. He'll describe an impression he has, and I'll always try to find an external context to liken it to using Ne.

    I think you'd have the same issue with Te, I just don't think you know exactly what Te is. Te /= practicality, business logic, etc.

    While I don't know the exact "Ni task" you were referring to, I don't really think there are "Ni tasks" or "Ne tasks" or "Te tasks" etc. Certain tasks can however be geared to illustrate how someone would go about doing them differently, which can indicate their functional usage, which may be what you're talking about.

  16. #16
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve
    I do only believe that there are four aspects to SOCIONICS reality - T, N, S, F. Each person has one of each, and a specific pair of either Ti/Fe or Te/Fi, and Ne/Si or Ni/Se. Each functional pair is the way it is because Ti is the opposite of Fe (External field statics vs Internal Object Dynamics), and Ne the opposite of Si (Internal Static Objects vs External Field Dynamics) etc. Things in the universe come in pairs, in dual-opposites. Just like magnets, opposites attract (and generally the case with most living creatures and gender attraction).
    Exactly.

  17. #17
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    I do only believe that there are four aspects to SOCIONICS reality - T, N, S, F. Each person has one of each, and a specific pair of either Ti/Fe or Te/Fi, and Ne/Si or Ni/Se. Each functional pair is the way it is because Ti is the opposite of Fe (External field statics vs Internal Object Dynamics), and Ne the opposite of Si (Internal Static Objects vs External Field Dynamics) etc.
    The existence of derived dichotomies makes this view untenable - any function can be seen as the "opposite" of any other. We could just as easily use Alpha/Gamma, Beta/Delta, and External/Internal as the basic dichotomies. Then Ti (Alpha Beta External) would be the opposite of Fi (Gamma Delta Internal).

    Things that are too similar get rejected and there are repulsive forces. With me, I look at static objects internally (Ne), and when there's Se thrown at me (external static objects), it's like trying to fill the same static object space in my mind with something that doesn't belong - and it feels foreign and I have a natural repulsion to it.
    Repulsion is not the same as absence; I agree that the two aspects repel each other, but that doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive - except in a strictly limited sense.

    The way you make a point takes an idea and rolls it along forward, extracting and evolving, and that's the way Te works (External Dynamic Objects - rolling from point to point kind of in a moving line). This is particularly evident in Expat's writing.
    I think this could have something to do with Ni too.

  18. #18
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    The existence of derived dichotomies makes this view untenable - any function can be seen as the "opposite" of any other. We could just as easily use Alpha/Gamma, Beta/Delta, and External/Internal as the basic dichotomies. Then Ti (Alpha Beta External) would be the opposite of Fi (Gamma Delta Internal).
    No they're not opposites because Ti and Fi are both static fields. They resemble each other so closely that where they differ (external vs internal) causes them to "compete" for the same space.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Repulsion is not the same as absence; I agree that the two aspects repel each other, but that doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive - except in a strictly limited sense.
    My point is that certain information element combinations (functions) repel other combinations, and that one will be healthy for a person's information processing and the other will not. It's like giving a person with AB- blood AB+ blood. The two are so similar but differ by the one antigen, and that makes the difference as to whether it will harm the person or if the body will reject it or not.

  19. #19
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    No they're not opposites because Ti and Fi are both static fields. They resemble each other so closely that where they differ (external vs internal) causes them to "compete" for the same space.
    Yeah, that makes sense.

  20. #20
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  21. #21
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    Not this particular letter but others written by Jefferson gave me the strong impression of Fi writing, and I have thought he could have actually been INFj rather than INTj.
    Hm, which letters are you referring to, the one's on natural rights and man, and what he says about God?

    Just curious what you see as Fi about them.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    setting it straight: Steve believes that there is no basis for model a, that is, ordering one's way of processing, element preference, etc. as functions that we're born with. He does however agree that there are differences between people that are both engrained at the cellular level and which invariably produce behaviors that are observable and correctly attributable to the element pairs that a person is born with.

    Is that correct?

  23. #23
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  24. #24
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington View Post
    setting it straight: Steve believes that there is no basis for model a, that is, ordering one's way of processing, element preference, etc. as functions that we're born with. He does however agree that there are differences between people that are both engrained at the cellular level and which invariably produce behaviors that are observable and correctly attributable to the element pairs that a person is born with.

    Is that correct?
    I believe that Model A has some inherent defects in the way it views information processing, including the idea that people can experience functions outside of their quadra.

    Also I believe that the information elements, while abstract, are quite observable in people, as I demonstrated in the Jefferson and Washington examples, as well as contrasting my own writing to Justin's and even Expat's (indirectly).

  25. #25
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    Sadly I don't remember which ones in particular, and no it wasn't the subject matter as much as the soul of it, for lack of a better word. Perhaps some of that can be attributed to the style at the time, but I think there's more to it than just that. I heard myself in his words. . . much the way I sometimes hear myself in Minde's words for example, as though someone else was writing down my thoughts for me the same way I would write them. But I only heard myself when he was voicing some of his most strongly held opinions, the throught process stood out more there. Wish I had kept hold of some examples to share. It was a long time ago.
    Ah I see. Personally I can also identify with a lot of his beliefs regarding humanity and the state, but I don't know if that was what you were referring to. I believe he's Ti especially because of the way he communicates.

  26. #26
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think socionics is flawed from the begging. It assumes that the understanding of a principle implies the understanding of a system which uses that principle.

    For example, the understanding of the operation of an electronic transistor doesn't imply the understanding of the operation of a logical gate and then it doesn't imply the understanding of the operation of a microprocessor. Even if the steps are directly derived from the source, they can't be reduced backwards. It becomes a qualitative change and not simply a quantitative one.

    Computers are a good example to illustrate this concept. There is a kind of graphics software called ray tracing. The algorithm is so simple that only a few lines of code are necessary to render a photo realistic scene. However, just because the product was created by a few lines of code it doesn't mean that another computer can take the rendered picture and turn it back to the basic components using the same amount of lines of code. Once rendered the picture becomes a product which is qualitatively different from the code used to generate it.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  27. #27
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat View Post
    Te is about what works
    Si is about working as little as possible
    So LSEs are sorted.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  28. #28
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex View Post
    I think socionics is flawed from the begging. It assumes that the understanding of a principle implies the understanding of a system which uses that principle.

    For example, the understanding of the operation of an electronic transistor doesn't imply the understanding of the operation of a logical gate and then it doesn't imply the understanding of the operation of a microprocessor. Even if the steps are directly derived from the source, they can't be reduced backwards. It becomes a qualitative change and not simply a quantitative one.

    Computers are a good example to illustrate this concept. There is a kind of graphics software called ray tracing. The algorithm is so simple that only a few lines of code are necessary to render a photo realistic scene. However, just because the product was created by a few lines of code it doesn't mean that another computer can take the rendered picture and turn it back to the basic components using the same amount of lines of code. Once rendered the picture becomes a product which is qualitatively different from the code used to generate it.
    It's an interesting analogy, but how does it apply to socionics?

  29. #29
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Steve, I agree with you about everything until you hit the word "including" in this sentence:

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    I believe that Model A has some inherent defects in the way it views information processing, including the idea that people can experience functions outside of their quadra.
    I experience functions outside of my quadra everyday... Crap, is it really 3AM? Alright, this can wait, haha. peace

  30. #30
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex
    I think socionics is flawed from the begging. It assumes that the understanding of a principle implies the understanding of a system which uses that principle.
    right.

  31. #31
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Can someone convince me that I don't "experience," for example, Fe..? If someone can do that, I can't say I disagree with much of what's been said here.

    The gestalt of Socionics theory--that there are 16 identifiable types who function in such ways and have such relationships--is not threatened by the views expressed in this thread about IM elements... (I guess that's why you had to "set it straight" lol.) Essentially, this is arguing over finer points, which is fine, but that's what it is--mountains out of molehills. IMO

    Steve--what you're addressing here is useful as a way to discern someone's correct type, i.e. analyzing functional preferences... Yeah, that's good. If ppl did it more, they would become better at typing IMO.
    Last edited by JuJu; 06-07-2008 at 10:06 PM.

  32. #32
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu View Post
    Can someone convince me that I don't "experience," for example, Fe..? If someone can do that, I can't say I disagree with much of what's been said here.
    What exactly is your impression of what Fe is? There's a lot of assumptions that are thrown around on this forum trying to stereotype certain behavior that is considered normal for all people as Fe, thus the misconception. No wonder people have been believing that they experience their non-quadra functions, because a lot of those functions have been defined very poorly. They have been defined as overly specific and concrete behavioral traits that when people see them they say "I do that in my life", then they identify with the function. Heck, I have very strong convictions/morals over certain things, so maybe I'm ENFp instead of ENTp lol . Out of the socionics functions, probably Ne and Ti have been defined the best, and even those definitions aren't that great.

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu
    Steve--what you're addressing here is useful as a way to discern someone's correct type, i.e. analyzing functional preferences... Yeah, that's good. If ppl did it more, they would become better at typing IMO.
    I wish they did lol.

  33. #33
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve
    What exactly is your impression of what Fe is? There's a lot of assumptions that are thrown around on this forum trying to stereotype certain behavior that is considered normal for all people as Fe, thus the misconception. No wonder people have been believing that they experience their non-quadra functions, because a lot of those functions have been defined very poorly. They have been defined as overly specific and concrete behavioral traits that when people see them they say "I do that in my life", then they identify with the function. Heck, I have very strong convictions/morals over certain things, so maybe I'm ENFp instead of ENTp lol .
    Correct. Functions are not behaviors. The reason why you don't directly experience non-quadra functions is simple: it would encroach upon your natural understanding of one of the aspects of reality (N, S, T, F). If I go about my days processing the internal dynamics of objects, why the fuck am I gonna care about the internal statics of fields? It's like buying another car when you already have a perfectly good one (the first person who makes a dumbass claim about "variety" or experiencing life wholly will get bitch-slapped). Quadra functions create a feedback loop and a consummate cycle that would be intensely perturbed if we went about trying to experience the functions that directly conflict with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve
    Out of the socionics functions, probably Ne and Ti have been defined the best, and even those definitions aren't that great.
    Big surprise, typical Aushra promoting the ENTp's as Gods of the socion (but they still need an ISFp to feed and bathe them!)
    Last edited by strrrng; 06-08-2008 at 12:46 AM.

  34. #34
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    What exactly is your impression of what Fe is? There's a lot of assumptions that are thrown around on this forum trying to stereotype certain behavior that is considered normal for all people as Fe, thus the misconception. No wonder people have been believing that they experience their non-quadra functions, because a lot of those functions have been defined very poorly. They have been defined as overly specific and concrete behavioral traits that when people see them they say "I do that in my life", then they identify with the function. Heck, I have very strong convictions/morals over certain things, so maybe I'm ENFp instead of ENTp lol . Out of the socionics functions, probably Ne and Ti have been defined the best, and even those definitions aren't that great.
    If we didn't experience four of the eight information elements it would mean that we would fundamentally be experiencing a different reality than people in the opposite quadra. In some limited sense this is true, but information elements are related to very concrete actions and experiences: everyone experiences emotional fluctuations, everyone has fixed relationship patterns - otherwise how could the early socionists, mostly Alpha, have even formulated socionics, which is primarily describing Fi?

  35. #35
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    otherwise how could the early socionists, mostly Alpha, have even formulated socionics, which is primarily describing Fi?
    "You mean people have relationships?"

    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  36. #36
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    If we didn't experience four of the eight information elements it would mean that we would fundamentally be experiencing a different reality than people in the opposite quadra.
    That's quite true. While the "objective" things that exist in reality are the same for all people (we're all living in reality), the way we see it, and the way we interact/experience it personally is quite different than those in our opposite quadra. If you got into a disagreement over something with REAL gammas (which there aren't too many for some reason), you'd experience a strangeness and a foreign-ness/backwardness that you didn't even know existed. You'd think, "How can people function like this?"

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    In some limited sense this is true, but information elements are related to very concrete actions and experiences: everyone experiences emotional fluctuations, everyone has fixed relationship patterns
    Right so I guess that means that emotional fluctuations =/ Fe and fixed relationship patterns =/ Fi . I guess it's time to find better ways of describing Fe and Fi.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    otherwise how could the early socionists, mostly Alpha, have even formulated socionics, which is primarily describing Fi?
    Here's the logic that went through your mind:
    -Fi = seeing the relations between people (according to common association)
    -Early socionists devised a theory that describes relations between different "types" of people
    -Early alpha socionists were Alpha NT (like Aushra)
    -Early socionists were using Fi, since they made a theory about "relations" between people
    -Alpha NTs can use Fi

    The problem with this logic:

    There are different WAYS that one can evaluate the nature of relationships between people - Fi is just one way; one lens to view it through.

    The Alpha NTs that created socionics took the route of examining personal relationships through an externally defined symmetrical structure (Ti), where you have 16 distinct types with different static "blocs" of functions that differentiate each type. I doubt that this strategy to interpreting relations between people would be the default choice by an Fi dominant type.

  37. #37
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    That's quite true. While the "objective" things that exist in reality are the same for all people (we're all living in reality), the way we see it, and the way we interact/experience it personally is quite different than those in our opposite quadra. If you got into a disagreement over something with REAL gammas (which there aren't too many for some reason), you'd experience a strangeness and a foreign-ness/backwardness that you didn't even know existed. You'd think, "How can people function like this?"
    Right.

    I agree with most of what you're saying; clearly Ti ego types approach Fi differently than Fi ego types. From there it's basically semantics.

  38. #38
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    The reason why you don't directly experience non-quadra functions is simple: it would encroach upon your natural understanding of one of the aspects of reality (N, S, T, F). If I go about my days processing the internal dynamics of objects, why the fuck am I gonna care about the internal statics of fields? It's like buying another car when you already have a perfectly good one (the first person who makes a dumbass claim about "variety" or experiencing life wholly will get bitch-slapped). Quadra functions create a feedback loop and a consummate cycle that would be intensely perturbed if we went about trying to experience the functions that directly conflict with them.
    What you’re saying is that I convert my understanding of say Fe to Fi, because I’m more comfortable with Fi…? Yeah, I agree—sometimes I do definitely, probably even most of the time, but always..?

    Steve and Strrrng, you’re both smart people—I know you to be, and that’s why I’m considering what you (currently) believe about this… I’m still considering it, and honestly will keep an open mind about it as long as you’re willing to explain it. Somehow I doubt that your whole understanding has been conveyed—regardless here’s a question about what’s been written so far: where’s the reasoning behind why ppl don’t experience their non-quadra functions..? So far the explanation seems to be something along the lines of ‘that’s just how it is.’ If I tried to pass this off as logical reasoning at Northwestern, they might have asked me to transfer. : )

    As to your theory itself: what’s been written connotes that ppl’s personalities are more simplistic than Model A would have ppl believe. It denotes this: ppl, rather than experiencing/expressing primarily X and secondarily Y (as in Model A,) ppl experience/express only X. Furthermore, Y repels them.

    (1)This understanding does not attempt to take into account the potential peculiarities/outliers of ppl's personalities—often (if not necessarily) these would exist outside of the ‘feedback loop.’ Model A does attempt to take them into account, (albeit imperfectly,) i.e. how one experiences/expresses the non-‘feedback loop’ functions. In other words, your understanding makes ppl seem less multi-faceted than they are, and with less potential to develop peculiarities (outside of their feedback loops) than they actually have. This understanding distorts reality more than Model A does, I feel sad to say.

    (2) The ‘feedback loop’ represents an ideal way of functioning, of experiencing/expressing reality—not actuality. Sometimes, by certain circumstances, one’s forced to care about/focus on functions outside of one’s feedback loop—e.g. at NU I had to utilize Ti to understand certain concepts in physics… This was necessary for me to achieve my objective: doing well in the course. Your understanding, at least what you’ve conveyed thus far, connotes that it should not have been possible for me to develop a situational understanding via Ti. Your theory suggests that it should have lead to a ‘perturbed state.’ I’ll be honest: unless one’s hypersensitive, not socialized well, bipolar, (i.e. with some mental diagnosis,) ‘perturbed state’ is not a good description of it. One gets used to the perturbation after awhile, and then it becomes not so perturbing at all… Indeed, for me, using Ti was difficult, especially at first—for one of the first times in my life I had to put in extra effort at school, but it became easier with repetition… Perhaps this would not happen with everyone, I admit, but your understanding does not allow for it to happen at all… Another distortion of reality.

    As I said, I’m pretty sure there’s more to your theory b/c I doubt that you two would get behind something like this if that’s all that there is to it. I understand how it might appeal to ppl, b/c it is idealistic—a black & white interpretation of something very grey… In Socionics, however, we should be going for realism… I’m happy that it makes more sense than Hitta though, lol—and that it can be useful to type people more accurately.

    I’m still open to whatever you’ll say, but yeah, the aforementioned are concerns... I'm interested to hear your logic. Peace, -Justin.
    Last edited by JuJu; 06-08-2008 at 05:37 AM. Reason: put Te instead of Ti... sorry, written in a rush

  39. #39
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    -model A is the black-and-white, prescriptive one
    -your physics example is not detailed enough to be valid
    -what we're saying is not idealistic at all. how I would love to use Te and whatnot. feedback cycles are how reality operates. there is no arbitrary/superfluous usage of things.

  40. #40
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    -model A is the black-and-white, prescriptive one
    -your physics example is not detailed enough to be valid
    -what we're saying is not idealistic at all. how I would love to use Te and whatnot. feedback cycles are how reality operates. there is no arbitrary/superfluous usage of things.
    strrrng, no offense, but you're overlooking the flaws of what you've proposed... I understand you're attached to it, or w/e, but it is what it is. no offense. peace.

    it would be good to respond with logic as well... or else, yeah, it doesn't mean much... we know that from hitta, haha

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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