Setting it Straight

[strrrng]

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

I'm not attached to anything lol.

[JuJu]

I'm not attached to anything lol.

That's good--I misunderstood you, I guess... I'm sorry. I'm not attached to anything either. In fact, to be honest, I'm totally open to what you're saying...

Picking out problems with the theories, I believe, will help everyone's understanding of them.

I agree with you that feedback cycles are the ways in which we communicate--right now though, I'm thinking that Model A does a better job of conveying the potentialities/complications of such cycles than what's been proposed here... You may still be right--I'm just waiting for more info.

[strrrng]

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.

that is not what it suggests at all. model A is what suggests that. model A says you only use two functions consciously and desperately seek out two others on an unconscious level. this idea is about making use of each true aspect of reality (N, S, T, F) in a different yet interconnected way, i.e., making use out of all quadra functions rather than two. the only thing we said about repulsion was that Fi would repel Fe, or Te would repel Ti, because it is like two objects trying to occupy the same space - it won't work.

horse manure.

[Steve]

Additionally, the understanding we're working with incorporates the idea that people's personalities are FAR MORE COMPLICATED than Model A would lead people to believe.

I'll respond to the rest in a bit.

[FDG]

Not to be critical, but what is this discussion about? Because I have trouble capturing the main thread of the conversation.

[Expat]

model A says you only use two functions consciously and desperately seek out two others on an unconscious level.

That's not really what model A says, you know. Or, even if some of the simplistic theoretical descriptions of model A could be (mis)interpreted that way, any reading of socionics articles, even type descriptions, shows that it's not the case.

This whole criticism by you and Steve of model A is a huge strawman argument. Of course it can and should be criticized, and maybe your own model is "better" (where, from my perspective, "better" is necessarily connected to what you can do with it. But anyway). But you're not criticising model A in its own terms; you're criticising your own misinterpretations of it. That's what has to be "set straight".

[JuJu]

That's not really what model A says, you know. Or, even if some of the simplistic theoretical descriptions of model A could be (mis)interpreted that way, any reading of socionics articles, even type descriptions, shows that it's not the case.

This whole criticism by you and Steve of model A is a huge strawman argument. Of course it can and should be criticized, and maybe your own model is "better" (where, from my perspective, "better" is necessarily connected to what you can do with it. But anyway). But you're not criticising model A in its own terms; you're criticising your own misinterpretations of it. That's what has to be "set straight".

I'm waiting for the 'meat' of their argument... I imagine that there is some, because like I previously said, I know them to be intelligent, and I don't understand why they would get behind this idea if there's this little to it... So yeah, hopefully an explanation is coming.

That said, so far it does seem to be a Strawman argument--based on a misinterpretation of Model A--which has lead to a model that is less reflective of reality than Model A... But which could be helpful for typing ppl more accurately.

It may still be "better" though... Let's see.

[strrrng]

horse and cow manure. I love em both.

[JuJu]

horse and cow manure. I love em both.

So you keep posting em..? Let's not derail the thread... All that I'm asking you to do is support your idea with logic and address critiques. It shouldn't be this hard or involve poop haha

[strrrng]

So you keep posting em..? Let's not derail the thread... All that I'm asking you to do is support your idea with logic and address critiques. It shouldn't be this hard or involve poop haha

the whole thread is horseshit. the only hope is that steve can articulate some Ti shit that will be interpreted well. The work it would take to actually logically evaluate arguments on this topic has proven to be pointless.

[JuJu]

the whole thread is horseshit. the only hope is that steve can articulate some Ti shit that will be interpreted well. The work it would take to actually logically evaluate arguments on this topic has proven to be pointless.

you could try to articulate something too, you know, that explains where you're coming from... What's pointless is to give up because you think it's pointless. That doesn't help anyone here... I'm willing to do the work.

[strrrng]

well, maybe steve can give some Si detail or something...lol

[Steve]

That's not really what model A says, you know. Or, even if some of the simplistic theoretical descriptions of model A could be (mis)interpreted that way, any reading of socionics articles, even type descriptions, shows that it's not the case.

This whole criticism by you and Steve of model A is a huge strawman argument. Of course it can and should be criticized, and maybe your own model is "better" (where, from my perspective, "better" is necessarily connected to what you can do with it. But anyway). But you're not criticising model A in its own terms; you're criticising your own misinterpretations of it. That's what has to be "set straight".

What aspects of model A are we misinterpreting? I base my claims regarding Model A on observations of people on this forum doing things I complained about in this thread, and referencing model a when they do it. Perhaps these people are misinterpreting model A, and that I would have no issue with the "correct" model A interpretation, but I have not heard an interpretation of model A that I do not have an issue with. Perhaps you could offer the "correct" model A interpretation, and maybe I won't take issue at all with it.

However this thread has not only been about finding flaws in model a (the way I've seen it being used); this thread has also addressed some of the issues with how I've seen many people interpret functions (which relates to how they see these functions in the context of model A) - not as information processes but as surface behavioral traits. For example people have alluded to ENxps having difficulty taking care of their health because of "weak" Si. or ESFjs always being late because of an Ni PoLR, or cite an ENTp using Id Te. As you can see, the issue is intertwined between people having an incomplete view of the functions, and looking for a justification of that incomplete understanding within the context of model A.

That said, so far it does seem to be a Strawman argument--based on a misinterpretation of Model A--which has lead to a model that is less reflective of reality than Model A... But which could be helpful for typing ppl more accurately.

If a Socionics model/understanding can be used to type people more accurately, isn't that THE reality that socionics tries to model? Wouldn't THAT model be the one more reflective of reality? What about model A do you see as more reflective of reality?

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. : )

I had asked you earlier in the thread, but maybe you missed it. What exactly is your interpretation of Fe? You say that you see/experience it daily, so what is it that you see/experience that falls under the Fe label?

Justin I appreciate your willingness to keep an open mind, but what haven't I explained regarding my understanding? A lot of this stuff is hard to justify concretely because it's based off of things that you just "see" about reality - anyone is capable of it if they just pay attention. Since this stuff is hard to justify on a concrete basis, I wanted you to experience it first hand, so I showed you the examples of Ti and Te writing with Jefferson and Washington respectively.functions Ti and Te, hoping that you would be able to get a distinct feeling as to which style feels more natural to you, and feel how each has a distinctly different rhythm.

I think the best way to do this is just to show you how the functions relate to your own experience. So the first step is to show you how you, in particular don't use your non-quadra functions. I think it's pretty clear that you don't use Ti, don't use Se, and I don't think you really use Ni, because, and I think you'll agree, the way strrrng describes Ni and the Ni/Se loop vs the Ne/Si loop reflects a different style than the way you and I perceive things. The last function of dispute seems to be your relationship with Fe, so as I asked again above, please describe your experience with Fe, and what causes those things to fall under the Fe label. That should be the last piece of the puzzle. I also invite you to read my description of Si, and I think you'll see that it resonates with you, and that you are aware of Si quite strongly.

My Si description: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...7&postcount=17

While that description is from the perspective of an ENXp's experience of Si (a more broad experience of it - looking at it through NeTi eyes, or NeFi in your case), ESXjs and ISXps should relate with the essence of the description - for them their Si will be more honed, since it is one of their primary modes of functioning ("ego bloc" or whatever - just as your Te won't be as precise or honed as an ISTp's or ESTj's, but the awareness is still there strongly). As you'll see in the description, Si is a dramatically different way of processing external perception than Se is, and just imagine to yourself "If a person is so in tune with processing things THIS way, how could they ever want to/be able to process things the other way?" I think you'll get it - just let down the guard of needing specific tangible substantiation (not that substantiation isn't possible) and simply experience the difference between the functions and you will see.

[Steve]

BTW Justin come on stickam sometime . I'd be happy to talk about stuff there as well.

[JuJu]

Justin I appreciate your willingness to keep an open mind, but what haven't I explained regarding my understanding?

What’s goin on Steve—I’m hoping that you can address the critiques of what’s been said thus far, (made in post #42.) Can your model explain those points? Also, maybe could you elaborate on what you said in post #48 about your system incorporating the idea that ppl’s personalities are more complicated than Model A conveys..? I haven’t heard anything about that idea beyond that one statement. (If it’s true though, obviously that’s huge.)

As to what you said in your above post—I read what you linked to up there, and yeah, it makes sense…

What I am disputing with you and Strrrng, is the idea that ppl do not (and furthermore cannot) use fuctions #3, 4, 7, and 8. No logic has been presented in favor of this view yet. No examples either. In fact, nothing has been presented in favor of it… What I’m trying to get you to do is present something.

If you can do this well, you’ll have converted someone—me… : )

You know, before I realized that I wanted to be a journalist, a couple years ago I was starting a grad program at Harvard in the History of Science… That field is full of this, over and over again: if a scientist has a new idea that he believes to be better than an old idea, he has to present it and prove it to his peers. Those peers will give the idea a lot of attention, and ultimately either accept it as valid or else it will wither under the scrutiny… That’s what’s we’re doing here. Justin

P.S. The reason that your theory is good for typing is because it cuts right to the major points of one’s personality (functions 1,2,5, and 6…) The reason it’s not “better” than Model A though, is because it cuts out the finer points of one’s personality, (functions 3,4, 7, and 8…)

P.P.S. I don't have a webcam, so can't go on Stickam... In this case, we're better off writing anyway--it's easier to discern if something makes sense or not this way... Plus, it's public so other ppl can make up their minds as well. Peace.

[strrrng]

What I am disputing with you and Strrrng, is the idea that ppl do not (and furthermore cannot) use fuctions #3, 4, 7, and 8. No logic has been presented in favor of this view yet. No examples either. In fact, nothing has been presented in favor of it… What I’m trying to get you to do is present something.

For the sake of understanding exactly where you're coming from, could you explain why and how people use their unvalued functions? I'm not sure how to answer your question without this piece of information.

[JuJu]

For the sake of understanding exactly where you're coming from, could you explain why and how people use their unvalued functions? I'm not sure how to answer your question without this piece of information.

Oh, ok, to know where I'm coming from you could look at the descriptions by Stratiev(etc. haha,) which explain each function for each type… Rick's description of IEE does it too, I think… Just that stuff... I think it explains it pretty well... That's where I'm coming from, pretty much.

[Steve]

What’s goin on Steve—I’m hoping that you can address the critiques of what’s been said thus far, (made in post #42.) Can your model explain those points? Also, maybe could you elaborate on what you said in post #48 about your system incorporating the idea that ppl’s personalities are more complicated than Model A conveys..? I haven’t heard anything about that idea beyond that one statement. (If it’s true though, obviously that’s huge.)

Ok I have that post quoted below - I'll address it point by point.

As to what you said in your above post—I read what you linked to up there, and yeah, it makes sense…

Cool

What I am disputing with you and Strrrng, is the idea that ppl do not (and furthermore cannot) use fuctions #3, 4, 7, and 8. No logic has been presented in favor of this view yet. No examples either. In fact, nothing has been presented in favor of it… What I’m trying to get you to do is present something.

If you can do this well, you’ll have converted someone—me… : )

See my points further down. Also, where's the logic saying that people DO use those functions? I already gave the theoretical logic about how functions compete for the same space (Ti vs Fi compete for the static field space) and how one's mind ain't big enough for the two of em'. I provided examples that illustrated different styles of information processing/expression and hoped that you could immerse yourself and experience the different rhythms of Ti and Te writing. I'm glad the Si description resonates with you, so I ask you, based on your experience with Si, can you really see yourself doing Se?

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..?

(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.

Not at all. And I believe you just illustrated the issue with how functions are seen by most people (as aspects of people's personalities instead of ways of information processing). The type of feedback loop we're referring to with the quadra functions refers to a very core way of information processing and CANNOT be directly tied to specific behavior. People of the very same type will do all sorts of different behavioral things and be their own person shaped by their life experience, genetics, and a whole bunch of other stuff. The possibilities for what people can do are limitless - so this understanding of socionics if anything opens the doors wide open for the many facets of people. All we're saying is that on the most abstract level, there are these four aspects of information processing, and that a person prefers one way to perceive information over another other.

(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.

Regarding the physics example, how did you go about learning the material that made it seem Ti to you? Your professor probably was a Ti type (there are a shitload of Alpha NT physics teachers) and he/she probably presented it in a really Ti way, which is why you really needed to exert effort to translate it to properly understand it. I can see in my head how you went about it - the prof gives you a Ti structure, and you try to find ways to extract from it these general neat principles that seem to contain all the information you need, then you sit down and repeat these general principles over and over in a neat linear fashion until they catch on as a neat Te sequence in your mind. You remind me of my dad who's your identical and how he would go about "studying" stuff. I see how you both get such a satisfaction once you've found the chain of little Te idea balls to roll along, and how everything seems so clear to you that way lol. I see it working like this in your mind with the balls rolling around that ring:



Ti doesn't work that way. A Ti person may very well take a different path to the answer each time they think because there's a zillion connections unified through a central "criteria". And as long as the Ti person understands the central criteria, it doesn't matter what route they take to get there, as long as they get there. This is why I think it'd be rare to find a Ti person doing lots of repetition of generalized "concepts", or repeating a specific sequence out loud to themselves as a way of remembering something the way you did. All they have to do is find one aspect of the concept that connects to the working understanding they have, and they can fill in all the rest.

So I still believe that you went about learning physics in a Te way, and it took effort because you needed to find a way to translate these "undefined" (to you) criteria for a framework into something self-contained and discrete (Te). Since your professor was most likely a Ti type, and since many physicists are Ti including Einstein, Newton, Feynman, physics can seem like a Ti-field. Anyone can learn physics, it's just that they will go about learning it in different ways.

I experienced a conversely similar equivalent in my freshman year college essay course. Fucking INFj professor lol. She had a major issue (from my perspective) communicating what she wanted in the essay, and refused to give any direction as to how the essay should be structured. She'd just give vague generalities like "Your idea needs to evolve through new points and reckon with itself through the essay". And it literally pissed the shit out of me - I don't know if I've ever been that annoyed with anything else in school. There was absolutely nothing I could attach onto so that I would work into my understanding as to how to write the essay. So what ended up happening was I would write a rough draft, she'd say I have my work cut out for me, and I'd send it to my Fi ENFp dad and he'd help me fix it and sure enough it worked lol. The idea here is that I always have needed that Ti external structure and unifying criteria in order to understand something, and when things are not presented that way, it requires significant effort on my part to try to search through the random bits of Te information to try to tie them together somehow. You basically do the reverse when you're presented with Ti.

These should be sufficient enough examples to show you how people need to exert effort and strain to translate information presented with non-valued functions to their native functions. People never experience those non-valued functions directly, they need to translate it, and as you can see from numerous google translations of Russian Socionics material, there are things that are lost in translation. Consider everything I've said in the thread regarding the nature of functions. I would still like to hear what your conception of Fe is, since you believe that you may use it. We need to make sure we're on the same page and that you and I are looking at the functions the same way if we're discussing how they manifest.

[JuJu]

Also, where's the logic saying that people DO use those functions?

It's in most function-by-function descriptions of each Socionics type, e.g. Straties'(etc.) Rick's of IEE, I believe... Most of those 'in greater depth' Russian descriptions describe how ppl use their 'non-feedback loop' functions... Have you read any of those..? I'm sorry if I've been presumptuous, I'd just assumed you had.

Anyway, I'm about to go to bed... I will read what you wrote before I go to sleep and get back to you about it tomorrow.

As to my belief about Fe--maybe you could read the Fe description for IEE in Straties (etc) or Rick's description of the IEE type and pretend it's my opinion, lol... We're testing your theory here, after all. I'm not the one with the new theory, so we're going to test the new (yours,) against the old, (theirs.) Make sense? Haha, ok, peace, -Justin

[strrrng]

In most function-by-function descriptions of each Socionics type, e.g. Straties'(etc.) Rick's of IEE, I believe... Most of those 'in greater depth' Russian descriptions describe how ppl use their 'non-feedback loop' functions... Have you read any of those..? I'm sorry, I was assuming that you had.

Anyway, I'm about to go to bed... I will read what you wrote before I go to sleep and get back to you about it tomorrow.

As to my belief about Fe--I guess, you could read the Fe description for IEE in Straties (etc) or Rick's description of the IEE type and pretend it's my opinion, lol... We're testing your theory here, after all. I'm not the one with the new theory, so we're going to test the new (yours,) against the old, (theirs.) Make sense? Haha, ok, peace, -Justin

Justin, no offense, but all you're doing is reciting Te shit. I think Steve was looking for more of a logical argument about why we use our non-valued functions.

[JuJu]

Steve, upon reading your answers, I can answer them quickly, as it seems to me that you missed the main point of the original questions. Thus I'll distill them to examples, which should be easier for you or strrrng to answer:

#1) What if a ENFp developed a preference (called a peculiarity in #42) for "experiencing" a function outside of his feedback loop--say Fe, as descibed in Straties(etc) function-by-function IEE description... How would your model account for such an anomaly, if it can?

#2) What if a ENFp focused on developing a function (for whatever reason) outside of his feedback loop into a skill--say Ti, as described in Straties(etc) function-by-function description of IEE... How would your model account for such an anomaly, if it can?

These are questions that Model can answer... Can your model answer them? Ok, gnight, -Justin

[JuJu]

Justin, no offense, but all you're doing is reciting Te shit. I think Steve was looking for more of a logical argument about why we use our non-valued functions.

strrrng, I'm referring you guys to what you're actually arguing with, i.e. Socionics theory... Not me.

Model A has already accounted for the above two questions. I want to see if your theory can...

I can tell that's what Steve's looking for, btw, but I'm not interested in that... That will mire us in trying to correct each other's understanding, lol, and I'm not interested in a discussion of semantics... What I'm interested in is whether your theory makes more sense than Model A--and Model A theory has already been articulated. That's why I'm referring him (you both, I guess) to practical examples of it.



Essentially, what I'm getting at is this: there's a whole body of literature (i.e. Socionics theory) that says we "experience" these non-quadra functions (sometimes termed 'non-feedback cycles' in this thread.) If we do not experience these functions, as your theory states--then a few questions come to mind. That is to say, logically, there are instances, one could conjecture, where one might develop these non-quadra functions, e.g. (a couple of these instances were addressed in the aforementioned questions, and in post 42.)

Your theory denotes that we don't experience them at all--that we convert them to what experience better. (That's how I imagine one of you will say your theory responds to these questions, anyway... I'm hoping that you surprise me, lol.) I want to see what your theory can do.

Even more basically though, (i.e. your theory vs. Model A how does your theory attempt to account for the numerous examples, provided in Socionics literature, (e.g. Straties-etc, Rick, etc) of ppl experiencing non-quadra functions? Can it address them in a way besides, (paraphrasing, lol,) "that's crazy... ppl don't experience that." If so, what are these experiences called in your theory..? Do you see what I'm getting at?

[strrrng]

this is bullshit. this thread should burn in hell.

[Steve]

It's in most function-by-function descriptions of each Socionics type, e.g. Straties'(etc.) Rick's of IEE, I believe... Most of those 'in greater depth' Russian descriptions describe how ppl use their 'non-feedback loop' functions... Have you read any of those..? I'm sorry if I've been presumptuous, I'd just assumed you had.

Anyway, I'm about to go to bed... I will read what you wrote before I go to sleep and get back to you about it tomorrow.

As to my belief about Fe--maybe you could read the Fe description for IEE in Straties (etc) or Rick's description of the IEE type and pretend it's my opinion, lol... We're testing your theory here, after all. I'm not the one with the new theory, so we're going to test the new (yours,) against the old, (theirs.) Make sense? Haha, ok, peace, -Justin

I've spent hours writing posts today, and spent a lot of time carefully trying to illustrate the point from multiple different angles and dimensions. And then now I get the typical Delta Aristocratic "Don't debate my logic, for it is not my logic, it is the logic of the Socionics authorities." Justin it's time to stop hiding behind your sources like a typical Delta and talk from real experience and your OWN understanding. You're the one who's supposedly trying to be convinced, not Rick, not Stratie. I understand that by allying yourself with "the bigwhigs" it moves you up in the social ladder and puts you in the daddy's chair, but seriously, enough.

Steve, upon reading your answers, I can answer them quickly, as it seems to me that you missed the main point of the original questions.

BULL SHIT. You're pulling a hkkmr and hiding behind convolution. I don't know if you intentionally planned this by trying to continually elude the arguments and evidence, so that when I complain I look like the bad guy and it makes me and my argument lose credibility. I hope that's not the case.

I've answered the questions left, right, up, down, back, and forth, and I think most people reading the thread would agree. I'm getting tired of the lack of understanding and your evading the issues.

I'm done answering questions, because they are the same questions you originally asked, and I answered them beyond thoroughly, citing examples of how each information element manifests. It's really not that difficult to understand.

I believe my explanations are more than enough for those who are truly interested.

I can tell that's what Steve's looking for, btw, but I'm not interested in that... That will mire us in trying to correct each other's understanding, lol,

Um no it won't, that's what IM interested in because there is only one correct understanding of the functions, so of course we should seek to find that one correct understanding. I'm strongly getting the sense though that you have no actual understanding; that all you can do to address my points is to shove other people's opinions and arguments in my face. I'd like to think differently...

and I'm not interested in a discussion of semantics...

Stop trying to evade with bullshit. - I don't argue over semantics, I argue over substance.

I don't have anything personal against you, I'm just calling you out on things that need to be pointed out. I invite you to seriously put aside what THE SOURCES say, and discuss the functions as they relate to your own experience, because if you don't, you're doing the same thing you criticized me for: arguing solely on a theoretical basis. The info is all here, make use of it if you want.

[mikemex]

@Steve:

What you say about Te can also be said about Fe: to me it seems like it lacks structure at all and are just bits of something I have no idea what it is.

The comparison should be between Ti and Fi. My take on it is that Ti and Fi handle the same problems but at different levels. Ti is binary and requires judgments to be absolute (either true or false) and for this reason Ti types are more fond of analysis, which is the process that implies decomposing complex problems into simpler statements.

Fi, however, is continuous: it handles different levels of truth. For that reason it is only really applicable to complex problems that require simultaneous judgment of several statements; hence the relational nature of Fi. Fi types are thus fond of synthesis.

But you're wrong if you think that ILE can't understand Fi and IEE can't understand Ti. It's just that they don't produce it at all and thus are dependent on external sources.

[Steve]

@Steve:

What you say about Te can also be said about Fe: to me it seems like it lacks structure at all and are just bits of something I have no idea what it is.

Interesting. Makes sense.

The comparison should be between Ti and Fi. My take on it is that Ti and Fi handle the same problems but at different levels. Ti is binary and requires judgments to be absolute (either true or false) and for this reason Ti types are more fond of analysis, which is the process that implies decomposing complex problems into simpler statements.

Fi, however, is continuous: it handles different levels of truth. For that reason it is only really applicable to complex problems that require simultaneous judgment of several statements; hence the relational nature of Fi. Fi types are thus fond of synthesis.

Interesting points. I know what you're getting at by the "different levels of truth" and "simultaneous judgment of several statements". I can see Fi types doing that - it's something that seems foreign to the way I do things, and something that I wouldn't know what to do with. I feel like what you said about the "different levels of truth" has an aspect of the Te hierarchy/prioritizing in it, and it's a good example of how Te works with Fi.

But you're wrong if you think that ILE can't understand Fi and IEE can't understand Ti. It's just that they don't produce it at all and thus are dependent on external sources.

I don't believe that an ILE can experience Fi directly. They may understand how Fi works from an external perspective, be able to recognize it, and even get a sense of the process Fi people use to come up with their judgments, but they can never actually undergo that process themselves. An ILE (I've done this many times before) can even figure out what judgment an Fi person will actually come to, but they do it by figuring out the Fi person's thinking patterns and analyze them from an external perspective.

But as I mentioned two paragraphs ago, that "different levels of truth" aspect and the "simultaneous judements" idea are things that wouldn't have any value to me in their raw form. In fact doing things that way will frequently yield conclusions/opinions that directly oppose those that I would reach doing things in my native way, which is why I think Ti/Fe people can only watch Fi people use Fi, they can never do it/directly experience the process themselves because it conflicts with their normal processing mode.

[JuJu]

man Steve, all that I'm trying do is get you to explain why we don't experience non-quadra functions, which Socionics theory says that we do experience... That's all I'm asking you to do. That's it. It's simple... Does your theory address that somehow? That's the only question I'm asking you to answer--and I would think that it'd be easy.

It seems like you're getting mad because you believe that I'm calling you out--I'm not. At all. All that I'm trying to do is get you to explain your theory in light of the current theory... Can you do that? Please, let's be more mature about it than in the last post. That was pretty silly. There's no need for anything personal at all... Ok, peace.

[Steve]

man Steve, all that I'm trying do is get you to explain why we don't experience non-quadra functions, which Socionics theory says that we do experience... That's all I'm asking you to do. That's it. It's simple... Does your theory address that somehow? That's the only question I'm asking you to answer--and I would think that it'd be easy.

It seems like you're getting mad because you believe that I'm calling you out--I'm not. At all. All that I'm trying to do is get you to explain your theory in light of the current theory... Can you do that? Please, let's be more mature about it than in the last post. That was pretty silly. There's no need for anything personal at all... Ok, peace.

It was not silly at all, and it was quite mature - to me what's immature is continually dismissing something without considering the substance of it- and I needed to let you know directly that I have no tolerance for people who are unwilling to argue from their own point of view, and people who cannot separate themselves from intellectual sources that are deemed "official" (which is how this all comes across to me). You wouldn't get the message any other way, because in my numerous previous posts I had asked you to describe personal examples of you using various functions. I also asked you to explain why you think that those examples would illustrate uses of those functions so that I could get a better sense on how you actually see the functions, but the only example you gave me was the physics example, which I directly addressed and analyzed, which you did not respond to. I wanted to get a sense of where you're coming from regarding your PERSONAL understanding of the functions, because ultimately the only way to be able to recognize the functions in experience is to actually have a personal understanding of them. My hope was that once you described to me how you experience the various functions, we could reconcile/straighten out our understanding of them to make sure that we're on the same page, and then discuss my claims about the model, both coming from the same reference point. I really don't know why you've been evading doing that. I spent a lot of time and effort trying to explain in great detail, providing a quite comprehensive background and multi-dimensional illustration of different functions and how they manifest in people, and basically you read it and say -"Nope, try again", or "I don't want to talk about that because it's not important" - who are you to say what's important in the discussion and what's not? It's abominably frustrating to say the least. You didn't address anything I brought up and made me feel like I wasted a lot of my time on someone who's just going to outwardly dismiss it without addressing it. This is starting to feel like communicating with my college writing professor. Maybe you and I are misunderstanding each other because we are just coming from totally different places (Ti vs Fi); maybe we can't understand what exactly the other one is asking. If so, this whole discussion should be a blatant validation of the ideas I've been saying, how there's NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL ENFps can understand Ti in the slightest, and likewise with ENTps and Fi.

I believe I've answered your question in every which way possible, while you don't seem to feel the same. Every time I go about answering the question you feel that I haven't addressed the question, so I really don't know what you want. Do you want me to read through and compare Rick's functional descriptions point for point? That's way too painstaking and I don't believe it's necessary here to understand what I've been trying to convey. For what it's worth I have read Rick's Fe description and I think it captures aspects of Fe, regarding how Fe plays off of the external mood and is quite outwardly expressive. However one has to be very careful when interpreting that, because all people will be outwardly expressive in some way, it's just that Fe types are aware of specific dynamics that occur and have an outwardly energizing effect on other Fe people.

I don't believe that anything has to be proven "in light of the current theory". All considerations should be regarded as equal - the "current theory" should be just as much on the hot seat as whatever understanding I'm portraying here. The original Model A theory was constructed with the intention of DESCRIBING REALITY, and what I'm trying to do is MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBE REALITY. So what should be critiqued here is which of the two theories models reality more accurately, not me trying to pick apart every bit of logic of every socionist who has affiliated himself with "the current theory".

Here's a way to see if we're misunderstanding each other or not:

Why don't you give me a sample answer to the question you're asking.

explain why we don't experience non-quadra functions

Give me a mock answer as to how you're looking to have this question answered. That seems to be the only way to do this.

Take a good hard look at this discussion - it's clear that I'm Ti-ing the whole thing up the wazoo and you're totally missing it, and you're Fi-ing back at me and I seem to totally be missing it to you - YOU WANT YOUR EXAMPLE DISPROVING THE THEORY?! HERE IT IS - STARING YOU RIGHT IN THE FACE! Ti WILL NEVER WORK WITH AN ENFp AND Fi WILL NEVER WORK WITH AN ENTp. The PoLR is virulent poison, end of story.

[Sabo]

I plead guilty to not having read all 8 pages of this thread, but this is an interesting way of looking at things. My question is -- d'you assert that ENTps and ISFps are equally incapable of using Te? So then Te PoLR is identical to Te as an 8th function, in which case unvalued functions can't be ordered? Personally, do you find Fi, Te, Ni, and Se equally incomprehensible? Or am I just misunderstanding your model?

[strrrng]

lol Justin, enough with the manipulative delta/so/6 bullshit. I don't appreciate the cycle: acting aggreeable-->>pulling some Te shit by asking for examples-->>dismissing personal logic because it isn't documented-->>chastising someone for expressing frustration with your attitude.

Steve has written enough to be published in a short story lol, yet you still just sit there, puffing that delta cigar, and ignore it because ?it lacks Te? lol. I dunno, but I just feel bad when someone puts in so much effort into something and gets zero reciprocation, hence why I said this thread is horse shit and should burn in hell.

[Steve]

I plead guilty to not having read all 8 pages of this thread, but this is an interesting way of looking at things. My question is -- d'you assert that ENTps and ISFps are equally incapable of using Te? So then Te PoLR is identical to Te as an 8th function, in which case unvalued functions can't be ordered? Personally, do you find Fi, Te, Ni, and Se equally incomprehensible? Or am I just misunderstanding your model?

Good question. It's not so much about being equally incapable, as much as it is which function conflicts the most with you and requires the most translation (essentially how you react to them when they're presented to you). ENTps obviously will be the most averse to Fi and ISFps the most averse to Te. I think I can make easier sense (require less translation) of Te and Ni than I would Se and Fi, since while Te and Ni do conflict with the functions I have a less honed but still strong awareness of (Si and Fe), they don't conflict as directly with my primary mode of functioning (I as a static type have my most honed/focused awareness of a static object function (Ne) and a static field function (Ti).)

So for me I hate Fi and Se the most, while Te and Ni can range from a little fly to swat to moderately annoying. Sometimes when Te is thrown at me, I can feel the Fi there lurking in the background (because of the Te/Fi feedback loop), but it's not as bad as getting full blown front and center honed Fi. Same with Ni and Se, although the "feel in the background" thing seems worse with Te and Fi for me.

I also want to note though that I can get along fine with people who have opposite functions than me, as long as we're all open minded and not too quick to make short-sighted judgments.

[Gilly]

I'm sorry, but saying that you "hate" a function seems like one of the most inane things you can say with reference to Socionics. I personally love Fi, probably more than Ti, just not in the way Fi-valuing types use it.

[Steve]

I'm sorry, but saying that you "hate" a function seems like one of the most inane things you can say with reference to Socionics. I personally love Fi, probably more than Ti, just not in the way Fi-valuing types use it.

What exactly is your conception of Fi? lol and what do you love about it?

[Jonathan]

Just a few quick comments on this.

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.

Augusta was inspired by Kepinski, but it isn't clear to what extent you can say that Socionics really blended these two theories. It seems to me it's mostly from Jung, with some terms and interpretation based on Kepinski. I would be interested about anything you can point to that shows that some substantive part of the model was from Kepinski.

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.

I think just about everyone on the forum believes they're talking from an information element perspective (with the exception perhaps of a few people who believe that information elements aren't so important, but that would be quite a minority). So, it seems perhaps a little patronizing to say that your views are superior because you're basing your ideas on IM elements and others aren't. Rather, the differences are probably based on the fact that your ideas of the IM elements are different from other peoples'.

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.

This is the crux of your argument, but it makes little sense to me because Augusta got to choose which elements of Kepinski's model she wanted to use. It was up to her what the "fundamentals of socionics" were. Socionics continued to evolve of course, but if anything the evolution has been toward considering that people use a greater diversity of IM elements, rather than less.

Augusta came up with Model A, and also apparently said (independently of talking specifically about Model A) that everybody uses each of the IM elements enough to take care of his/her basic personal needs, but focuses more on the ego block. You're saying that she contradicted herself because Kepinski's model was about more complete oppositions. Well, Augusta got to choose who much of Kepinski's ideas she wanted to take, and apparently she chose to take less of them than you might have...but that does not mean that she contradicted herself.

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.

This argument comes up every once in awhile. It's kind of like saying that black is opposed to white..and deducing therefore that gray does not exist.

Surely, if you wanted to make everything black, then you would be completely opposed to making everything white. Someone who is driven to make everything white would be working completely at cross-purposes with you. However, despite this, gray still exists, and it's a useful color for certain things.

Similarly, yellow and purple are complete opposites on the color wheel. If you make something more yellow, it will be less purple, and if you make it more purple, it will be less yellow. Something that is trying to be yellow will naturally need to be less purple. Now, if you combine these colors in various combinations, you'll probably get brown.

Well, I happen to like brown.

But you might say that if you're trying to concentrate on something, you want a very pure kind of thought. You don't want to be thinking about feelings and social kinds of things while doing a math test. Of course people need to concentrate sometimes. But that's only one aspect of life. It seems to me pretty narrow to only focus on the ego block.

As to the idea that people are only able to interact successfully within a certain quadra....well, that may be nice in theory, but in practice people are just a lot more complex.

[Sabo]

Good question. It's not so much about being equally incapable, as much as it is which function conflicts the most with you and requires the most translation (essentially how you react to them when they're presented to you). ENTps obviously will be the most averse to Fi and ISFps the most averse to Te. I think I can make easier sense (require less translation) of Te and Ni than I would Se and Fi, since while Te and Ni do conflict with the functions I have a less honed but still strong awareness of (Si and Fe), they don't conflict as directly with my primary mode of functioning (I as a static type have my most honed/focused awareness of a static object function (Ne) and a static field function (Ti).)

Isn't "translating" an information aspect essentially the same thing as using that function? If I understand you correctly, it seems like this just boils down to a semantics debate... what does it mean to "use" a function? Unfortunately, it's hard to come up with a clear answer on this, since we don't really know what functions are to begin with.

[strrrng]

omfg, cut that shit out. that's the kind of stuff that just perpetuates stupid stereotypes about XEIs + Te-PoLR + being unreasonably stupid. way to keep it up!

did I say Te = facts? No. Te people are however very concerned with objective/concrete data. A Ti person would have focused on the conceptual aspect of what Steve was saying, instead of challenging everything by asking for sources and hiding behind "documented" stuff.

[Gilly]

Having a particular connection with a person, being able to relate with people on a deeper level than smalltalk and sharing sentiments, having a sense of duty and responsibility to another person, the affirmation gained by realizing that I am "lovable."

And yes I realize that this is not exclusive to Fi valuing types, but it is related to Fi.

[strrrng]

Having a particular connection with a person, being able to relate with people on a deeper level than smalltalk and sharing sentiments, having a sense of duty and responsibility to another person, the affirmation gained by realizing that I am "lovable."

And yes I realize that this is not exclusive to Fi valuing types, but it is related to Fi.

this is called FRIENDSHIP. fuck, why do people think that traits are functions? Fi types may go about this stuff in a specific way, but those traits are not Fi.

[Steve]

Isn't "translating" an information aspect essentially the same thing as using that function? If I understand you correctly, it seems like this just boils down to a semantics debate... what does it mean to "use" a function? Unfortunately, it's hard to come up with a clear answer on this, since we don't really know what functions are to begin with.

What I mean by translate is to take information from a non-valued function and try to make sense of it using your valued functions. In this attempted translation, much meaning is lost. The best that can happen is that a person interprets the information into something that vaguely resembles the information from the non-quadra functions, a lot of time missing the actual point.

[strrrng]

am a "Ti person" and yes, I do want to understand more about conceptual things, but what is so wrong about asking for a more concrete example? I am interested in seeing an example of this too, though I feel like it won't be happening, because you will just say that nobody understands the functions, so when they think they're using (an unvalued) function, they're really not, blah blah blah...

You are aware that I was referring to Justin, right? I didn't say Te people are the only ones concerned with having examples. It was just the manner in which he was going about treating steve's posts that resembled the Ti and Te differences.