Forums Perception

[Hitta]

INTj: Rigid, Mechanical, Calculating, Analytical, Inventive, Creative, Philosophical, Passive, Unaggressive
INTp: Analytical, Philosophical, Open-minded, Sarcastic, Bold, Creative, spontaneous

Problem with this: Ok, to start off with, this totally defies logic. If model A is in anyway accurate, there is no way this can be the case. Take the ENTp for example. Most people think that the ENTp is impulsive, spontaneous, and creative(most of this due to people's idiocy with the EP group), which is true. In viewing the ENTp this way, most people totally disregard the idea of functional analysis. Though I don't think anything should be set in stone, its generally accepted by socionists that the function responsible for this is Ne. Now if INTjs and ENTps both use Ne in their ego block, wouldn't they both appear to be similar in this regard(not exactly the same) but they should resemble each other in their impulsiveness and creativity. Ne is often referred to as the intuition of possibilities. I find this to be odd(though its correct) when comparing it to what people think of Ni. I've seen several times where Ni is referred to as the intuition of "magical possibilities". Ok, if you don't see the problem with this, then you are probably brain dead. The ENTps weakest unconscious function 7, which most socionists refer to as the anti-thesis to the personality of that individual is Ni. Whatever the ENTp is, the INTp must be their anti-thesis, its a ideal of mathematical precision. Anything other than that would indicate a total failure in the model.
So if Ne is about possibilities, originality, impulsivity, and creativity; then Ni has to be about absolutes, normalness, and static behavior. Or it could be the other way, where ENTps and INTjs are the ones that think in absolutes normalness and static behavior; though this would totally contradict the ideologies behind the functions and most notable socionists opinions. If this was the case, ISTjs would be the new INTj. But then again, most people here can't even tell me what the hell Ni is or supposedly is, yet for some reason they keep holding onto this stereotype of INTps and INTjs. The truth is, is there has to be something wrong with the crap that everyone is spoon feeding everyone.

[tcaudilllg]

INTj: Rigid, Mechanical, Calculating, Analytical, Inventive, Creative, Philosophical, Passive, Unaggressive
INTp: Analytical, Philosophical, Open-minded, Sarcastic, Bold, Creative, spontaneous

Problem with this: Ok, to start off with, this totally defies logic. If model A is in anyway accurate, there is no way this can be the case. Take the ENTp for example. Most people think that the ENTp is impulsive, spontaneous, and creative(most of this due to people's idiocy with the EP group), which is true. In viewing the ENTp this way, most people totally disregard the idea of functional analysis. Though I don't think anything should be set in stone, its generally accepted by socionists that the function responsible for this is Ne. Now if INTjs and ENTps both use Ne in their ego block, wouldn't they both appear to be similar in this regard(not exactly the same) but they should resemble each other in their impulsiveness and creativity. Ne is often referred to as the intuition of possibilities. I find this to be odd(though its correct) when comparing it to what people think of Ni. I've seen several times where Ni is referred to as the intuition of "magical possibilities". Ok, if you don't see the problem with this, then you are probably brain dead. The ENTps weakest unconscious function 7, which most socionists refer to as the anti-thesis to the personality of that individual is Ni. Whatever the ENTp is, the INTp must be their anti-thesis, its a ideal of mathematical precision. Anything other than that would indicate a total failure in the model.
So if Ne is about possibilities, originality, impulsivity, and creativity; then Ni has to be about absolutes, normalness, and static behavior. Or it could be the other way, where ENTps and INTjs are the ones that think in absolutes normalness and static behavior; though this would totally contradict the ideologies behind the functions and most notable socionists opinions. If this was the case, ISTjs would be the new INTj. But then again, most people here can't even tell me what the hell Ni is or supposedly is, yet for some reason they keep holding onto this stereotype of INTps and INTjs. The truth is, is there has to be something wrong with the crap that everyone is spoon feeding everyone.

The forum is okay man... it's just your interpretation of it that's wrong....

[Joy]

So if Ne is about possibilities, originality, impulsivity, and creativity; then Ni has to be about absolutes, normalness, and static behavior.

Where on earth did you get that idea? The relationship between Ne and Ni (or Se and Si, or Fe and Fi, or Te and Ti) doesn't work like that (in Model A or otherwise).

If you want to contrast Ne to the information aspect most similar to it, then use Se. If you want to contrast Ne to the information aspect completely opposite of it, then use Si.

[Blaze]

Ni is the clear perception of the kaleidescopic vortex of time.

[Hitta]

The forum is okay man... it's just your interpretation of it that's wrong....

Lol, see following, her post pretty much sums up everything

Where on earth did you get that idea? The relationship between Ne and Ni (or Se and Si, or Fe and Fi, or Te and Ti) doesn't work like that (in Model A or otherwise).

If you want to contrast Ne to the information aspect most similar to it, then use Se. If you want to contrast Ne to the information aspect completely opposite of it, then use Si.

For all the talk about socionists and stuff, statements like that just make it look like you've never read any literature on the topic; I mean no, I don't use them as my ultimate guide, but your statement lacks any logic whatsoever. People have two sets of functions that are divided into two different categories; Valued and Devalued functions. These two groups are divided into conscious and unconscious sections.

Now to do what you recommend, by comparing the Ego function to the PoLR function; you would get anti-correlation. Conscious functions are what we do, its our ego. We think with these functions, we act with these functions, or we don't act with these functions, and we disregard these functions.

Take an INTj for example, with an +Ne(note I am not using the multidimensional functions just to play your game) creative function and a Se Polr function. The INTj will attempt to be creative and be original and see all possibilities. With the +Se PoLR INTj will not perform passive forms of involvement, meaning they are usually aggressive when they do this. The INTj energy level tends to be unstable. They tend to start things extremely strong, then they start to lose their willpower and begin to slack. They often have these big plans that they never put into action. But anyways that is besides the point. As I said the conscious functions are the actions, and the unconscious functions are the motivations. The 1 and 2 functions use the 7 and 8 functions as anti-thesis motivation. The 1 and 2 functions work in spite of the 7 and 8 functions. The INTj tries to act creative and original because it has a motivation to not be normal and conforming. The 5 and 6 functions are the positive energy that fuels the 1 and 2 functions. The INTj tries to act creative and original because it has a motivation to be rebellious and aggressive. The 3 and 4 functions occupy the conscious functions like the 1 and 2 functions. The INTj tries to act creative and original therefore the INTj does not like to do routine tasks and be passive.

Basically model A works like this:

Ego 1 2
-Ego 4 3
Motivation 6 5
-Motivation 7 8

1 and 7 will be true anti-thesis and 4 and 6 will be true anti-thesis.

Anti-thesis must come from the unconscious. If you've ever studied a sociology class, all actions are the result of contradicting motivations. see Hegel

[Hitta]

Also, note that Hegel was probably an INTp.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Are you suggesting that people cannot be aware of their motivations, and that they cannot be unaware of their actions?

[Hitta]

Are you suggesting that people cannot be aware of their motivations, and that they cannot be unaware of their actions?

Um no, I just told you what my motives were. I'm aware.

Unconscious is hidden out of the context of the ego.... yes thats correct in a sense, its just a highly abstract sense that I don't care to explain and I will probably confuse myself in the process.

Think of unconscious as being in a different league than the conscious functions. They are our hidden motives yes, its kind of like the implied message in a way.

[strrrng]

I must see things in a static way, cause hitta is still a retard.

[FDG]

So if Ne is about possibilities, originality, impulsivity, and creativity; then Ni has to be about absolutes, normalness, and static behavior.

This is a logical flaw. Ni is not the negation of Ne, or vice versa. Otherwise, a Ni creative would have Ne as PoLR, don't you think? Qed.

[strrrng]

i don't even agree with Steve's (??) idea that Ti and Fi compete for the same "space".

it's based on the logic that people have a dominant way to perceive static fields, static objects, dynamic fields and dynamic objects. this preferred style is natural and consistent and adds to one's functional cycle, so simply alternating to another mode whenever would upset this natural mode.

[Phaedrus]

Take the ENTp for example. Most people think that the ENTp is impulsive, spontaneous, and creative (most of this due to people's idiocy with the EP group), which is true. In viewing the ENTp this way, most people totally disregard the idea of functional analysis. Though I don't think anything should be set in stone, its generally accepted by socionists that the function responsible for this is Ne. Now if INTjs and ENTps both use Ne in their ego block, wouldn't they both appear to be similar in this regard (not exactly the same) but they should resemble each other in their impulsiveness and creativity.

No, because your natural outward behaviour, that is your temperament, which is what you are talking about here, is determined by your base function only. We should expect ENTps and INTjs to be very clearly different in that respect. They don't resemble each other at all when it comes to impulsiveness and creativity.

Ne is often referred to as the intuition of possibilities. I find this to be odd(though its correct) when comparing it to what people think of Ni. I've seen several times where Ni is referred to as the intuition of "magical possibilities". Ok, if you don't see the problem with this, then you are probably brain dead.

There is a big problem with this, and the problem is that the Ni function is (totally incorrectly) associated with mysticism and the like.

The ENTps weakest unconscious function 7, which most socionists refer to as the anti-thesis to the personality of that individual is Ni. Whatever the ENTp is, the INTp must be their anti-thesis, its a ideal of mathematical precision. Anything other than that would indicate a total failure in the model.

Okay, if you are right it's easy. Then the model must be wrong, because ENTp is clearly not the anti-thesis to the INTp.

So if Ne is about possibilities, originality, impulsivity, and creativity; then Ni has to be about absolutes, normalness, and static behavior.

Which Ni is not. So we can conclude that either the model is wrong or your interpretation of it is wrong. Hopefully we can agree on that.

Or it could be the other way, where ENTps and INTjs are the ones that think in absolutes normalness and static behavior; though this would totally contradict the ideologies behind the functions and most notable socionists opinions. If this was the case, ISTjs would be the new INTj.

It is equally wrong to attribute those things to ENTps and INTjs. But it is an indisputable fact that ISTjs and INTjs have the exact same temperament and are very similar in outward behaviour, as is confirmed by every socionic description of famous representatives of those two types.

[Phaedrus]

Also, note that Hegel was probably an INTp.

Hegel was definitely not an INTp.

[Wynch]

I must see things in a static way, cause hitta is still a retard.

I wouldn't call him a retard, but I do think his argument is flawed.

Why don’t we break it down to its simplest form.

Ego: acting
-Ego: not acting
Id: motivating
-Id: not motivating.

First of all action and motivation are not opposite in and of themselves. The fact that the functions are opposite is a consequence of observed patterns and something I’ll get into later. Meanwhile not motivating is opposing to action only in so much as those two sets of functions are similar but dissimilar. It’s like magnetism: opposites will attract because they make up the flaw in another, but things that are too similar will be counter-productive and oppose. I’ll use your ENTp example. Ni does not motivate Ne, not because it is opposite, but because it is a dissimilar way of approaching a similar idea. The N functions are internal irrational (perception-based) functions. Ne, is a perceptive functioned based on the statics of objects, while Ni is a perceptive function based on the dynamics of fields. Both functions are about possibilities, in a sense, but their sense of possibility is entirely different. Their function (internal perception) is the same, but their application is opposite so they will not motivate each other. Meanwhile Super-Ego functions will be very similar in motive but opposite in approach. Se is the extroverted static of objects while Ne is the introverted static of objects. Those two, while similar in application (perception of the statics of objects), are dissimilar in function (extroverted vs. introverted) and therefore they will not act together.

The reason why action and motivation are antitheses is because people are ultimately motivated by a lack of something. Ergo, you will be motivated to action by the things you are missing. NeTi is going to be motivated by its antithesis SiFe because they are entirely dissimilar.

[strrrng]

I wouldn't call him a retard, but I do think his argument is flawed.

If he came down from his ivory tower of mindless abstraction, I wouldn't have a problem with him.

[Hitta]

INTj and ISFj superego relations are described as more favorable than conflict because the ESFp is functioning precisely the opposite of how the INTj prefers to function. the difference is in the temperament. all IJ's pay some heed to IJ functions, whether base or role.

INFj's and INTj's have more favorable relations than INTj's and ISTj's, in spite of the "opposite" IJ functions -- precisely because of the EP function blocings. (the ITj's may hit each other's EP POLR with their EP creative functions.)

whatever function cycle rationale there is, it sounds too exotic to be worth considering if it defies the commonsense, observable descriptions of intertype relations and function blocings. i don't entirely disagree with what you're saying though. but there are other things that could "upset the natural mode" too.

Precisely the reason why INTjs and INFjs have a better relationship than INTjs and ISTjs is because the they share dual-seeking functions. INTjs use (-Ti/+Te) disjunctive analytical logic, which is basically anti-stereotypical to the extent that it would blow off most common sense peoples heads. Because of this INTjs have a motivation to not dislike people because of what they do or how they do it.... which is the INFjs dominant function (+Fi/-Fe).

Take the ENTp for example. Most people think that the ENTp is impulsive, spontaneous, and creative (most of this due to people's idiocy with the EP group), which is true. In viewing the ENTp this way, most people totally disregard the idea of functional analysis. Though I don't think anything should be set in stone, its generally accepted by socionists that the function responsible for this is Ne. Now if INTjs and ENTps both use Ne in their ego block, wouldn't they both appear to be similar in this regard (not exactly the same) but they should resemble each other in their impulsiveness and creativity.
No, because your natural outward behaviour, that is your temperament, which is what you are talking about here, is determined by your base function only. We should expect ENTps and INTjs to be very clearly different in that respect. They don't resemble each other at all when it comes to impulsiveness and creativity.

Um, can you be anymore completely insane. That makes no sense. You're saying that the creative functions have no influence on a person's behavior.

Model D According to Phaedrus

INTj
1 2 3 4


INTp
1 2 3 4

Okay, if you are right it's easy. Then the model must be wrong, because ENTp is clearly not the anti-thesis to the INTp.

Or you're not INTp.

which also goes to show there is no precise "opposite", when comparing the eight functions to each other. Se and Ne are only most alike given an arbitrary selection of function dichotomies to compare them with. if we choose some other dichotomies to look at selectively, one can make Ne and Ni look most alike.

i don't even agree with Steve's (??) idea that Ti and Fi compete for the same "space". that may be one effect to consider. but on the other hand, maybe Ti and Fi-base types are most adept at utilizing that space. so utilizing some Ti and Fi togeather is easier for them (compared to say, ETp's and EFp's, EP's for whom an IJ function is POLR.)

I never used the word opposite, I used the word anti-thesis. The opposite function could never be the anti-thesis because they are in different areas. No, Ne(-Ni/+Ne) and Ni(+Ni/-Ne) are different functions in the SAME area. And if a person has one of them in the ego block, that person uses the other as an unconscious motivator. As an example, INTjs use Ne(-Ni/+Ne) in spite of the INTp ego function Ni(+Ni/-Ne).

All the NT SF EP EJ IJ crap is retarded. Its like your way of saying that a person is one-dimensional.

[Hitta]

If he came down from his ivory tower of mindless abstraction, I wouldn't have a problem with him.

And yea, you just complain to complain so I'm not too worried about you.

[Wynch]

I'd like to formally thank everyone for disregarding my argument. You guys rock.

Peace...

[strrrng]

And yea, you just complain to complain so I'm not too worried about you.

I'm not compaining; that would imply I cared about you lol. I'm calling it as I see it. I actually used to find you somewhat interesting, but then I saw that you live in an ivory tower of mindless abstraction. If you applied yourself in a more direct, substantial way, I wouldn't insult you lol.

[strrrng]

I'd like to formally thank everyone for disregarding my argument. You guys rock.

Peace...

I think you just proved that you're a 6 lol

[Wynch]

Because I find it annoying to make a point that undermines the argument in this thread at the heart of the issue and have absolutely no one pay attention to it? If so, then sign me up.

[strrrng]

Because I find it annoying to make a point that undermines the argument in this thread at the heart of the issue and have absolutely no one pay attention to it? If so, then sign me up.

I'm just saying, the fact that you were looking for external validation points to 6.

[Wynch]

I guess you could look at it that way. But primarily I just think that my point makes this thread somewhat redundant, therefore it irritates me that the argument continues. And if my argument doesn't change things, I want to know why.

[Phaedrus]

Um, can you be anymore completely insane. That makes no sense. You're saying that the creative functions have no influence on a person's behavior.

I am saying that your socionic temperament is determined by your base function -- and only by your base function -- and that happens to be a true statement. Your creative function is important, but not in the way you think, because the Ne plays a totally different role in the INTj than in the ENTp.

Or you're not INTp.

Regardless of which type I am myself, the INTp is not the anti-thesis to the ENTp.

[Logos]

I am saying that your socionic temperament is determined by your base function -- and only by your base function -- and that happens to be a true statement. Your creative function is important, but not in the way you think, because the Ne plays a totally different role in the INTj than in the ENTp.

Regardless of which type I am myself, the INTp is not the anti-thesis to the ENTp.

I think I'm going to go lie down for a minute. I just agreed with Phaedrus and I'm feeling light-headed all of a sudden.

[Wynch]

Phaedrus is my hero. Every time he states an absolute my heart beats harder and my knees grow weak. We should get married and have little Phaerotr0ns.

[strrrng]

I guess you could look at it that way. But primarily I just think that my point makes this thread somewhat redundant, therefore it irritates me that the argument continues. And if my argument doesn't change things, I want to know why.

because you're a woman lol

[Wynch]

I have been adequately chastised.

*goes to sit quietly in the corner with her needlework*

[Hitta]

I am saying that your socionic temperament is determined by your base function -- and only by your base function -- and that happens to be a true statement. Your creative function is important, but not in the way you think, because the Ne plays a totally different role in the INTj than in the ENTp.


Regardless of which type I am myself, the INTp is not the anti-thesis to the ENTp.

All the functions are in equilibrium in model A. All the functions have a equal part in the personality of an individual(though thats not to say that all of the functions are of equal consciousness). The creative function has unconscious motivations, along with the agenda function. They both have sort of a motivation towards the person's complex goals. The creative function is referred to as the "creative" function or "liberal" function for a reason. Though I could debate something totally opposite from what I'm fixing to say(not that it diminishes the value of what I'm fixing to say, but the term "creative" or "liberal" in my opinion has different connotations than what I think). Regardless, the common socionics interpretation from just about every socionists that I've ever read, is that the creative is our kind of "output" function. The base function just is sort of what we do, and the creative function is what we gravitate towards. To say that the base function totally dominates the temperament is sheer stupidity. The theory by Bukalov and Gulenko is that the functions(like I have said many and many and many and many of times) sort of leak between the conscious and the unconscious. So the base function of an individual will have a slight leak into the unconscious as a motivation unconscious valued function and the Dual seeking function will place a slight place in the ego of the individual. Bukalov pretends that each function in model A(or B) has a certain amount of connections to the conscious and the unconscious(though this is probably just so people can make some sense out of it as every person is different and will have different levels of motivations and actions). Bukalov states that the base function has 4 conscious links and 1 unconscious link. The creative functions position in the unconscious is much stronger than the base functions as it has 3 links to the conscious and 2 links to the unconscious. Accepting functions actually supposedly have a weaker motivation on the person's character than the creative function. The creative function is a much stronger part of the motivations of an individual, hence the words "producing" "creative" "liberal".

[Hitta]

And believe what you want with the ENTp is the INTp anti-thesis thing. I don't really care.

[Phaedrus]

All the functions are in equilibrium in model A. All the functions have a equal part in the personality of an individual (though thats not to say that all of the functions are of equal consciousness). The creative function has unconscious motivations, along with the agenda function. They both have sort of a motivation towards the person's complex goals. The creative function is referred to as the "creative" function or "liberal" function for a reason. Though I could debate something totally opposite from what I'm fixing to say (not that it diminishes the value of what I'm fixing to say, but the term "creative" or "liberal" in my opinion has different connotations than what I think). Regardless, the common socionics interpretation from just about every socionists that I've ever read, is that the creative is our kind of "output" function. The base function just is sort of what we do, and the creative function is what we gravitate towards. To say that the base function totally dominates the temperament is sheer stupidity. The theory by Bukalov and Gulenko is that the functions (like I have said many and many and many and many of times) sort of leak between the conscious and the unconscious. So the base function of an individual will have a slight leak into the unconscious as a motivation unconscious valued function and the Dual seeking function will place a slight place in the ego of the individual. Bukalov pretends that each function in model A (or B) has a certain amount of connections to the conscious and the unconscious (though this is probably just so people can make some sense out of it as every person is different and will have different levels of motivations and actions). Bukalov states that the base function has 4 conscious links and 1 unconscious link. The creative functions position in the unconscious is much stronger than the base functions as it has 3 links to the conscious and 2 links to the unconscious. Accepting functions actually supposedly have a weaker motivation on the person's character than the creative function. The creative function is a much stronger part of the motivations of an individual, hence the words "producing" "creative" "liberal".

What you say here does not contradict what I said about your socionic temperament. Regardless of whether what you say here is really true, it could be true despite the fact that every INTj has an IJ temperament (as that temperament is correctly described in the socionic literature), and that every ENTp has an EP temperament (as that temperament is correctly described. These temperament are clearly empirically observable features of each type. You cannot have a different temperament than the temperament that corresponds to your correct type, and that means that if you don't have an IJ temperament you are necessarily not an INTj.

I don't believe that you have an IJ temperament. Prove me wrong, and I just might accept you as an INTj. If you say that you fit another temperament better than IJ, you have falsified your belief that you are an INTj.

[Wynch]

I agree with Phaedrus entirely. It's temperament that differentiates between all socials, researchers, etc and that is reflected primarily in the base function. Though INTj and ENTp will share similar ways of approaching and understanding an argument, their temperament, and ultimately the ways in which their IMs unfold, will determine how it is that that argument will be projected back outwards and that is the reason why INTj and ENTp (like any other quadra pair) are not interchangeable types. They manifest in entirely different ways. It should be extremely difficult to mistake a quadra pair due to temperament alone.

Also:

The base function just is sort of what we do, and the creative function is what we gravitate towards.

That's precisely what temperament is. It's what we do, how we act. EPs are quintessentially static observers of objects. From there, external and internal (objective vs. subjective) influences determine how that will manifest itself and our creative function will determine what we do with it. Base is the primary lens with which an individual views the world. Creative is (for the most part) what they do with it.

[Logos]

I don't believe that you have an IJ temperament. Prove me wrong, and I just might accept you as an INTj. If you say that you fit another temperament better than IJ, you have falsified your belief that you are an INTj.

But doesn't the empirical burden of proof lie with you to falsify his claim and not so much his burden to prove that he is an INTj?

[Creepy-bg]

But doesn't the imperical burden of proof lie with you to falsify his claim and not so much his burden to prove that he is an INTj?

irrelevant. Phaedrus has spoken. Discussion over. You are a liar and an idiot.

[Wynch]

irrelevant. Phaedrus has spoken. Discussion over. You are a liar and an idiot.

Truth. BG speaks only truth.

[Phaedrus]

But doesn't the empirical burden of proof lie with you to falsify his claim and not so much his burden to prove that he is an INTj?

No, because hitta has described his own behaviour in a way that strongly suggests IP or perhaps EP temperament. I can see no way of reconciling what he has said about himself with the IJ temperament. And based on what hitta has said himself I think that he believes that INTjs have an IP temperament. If he can prove me wrong, so much the better.

[Hitta]

No, because hitta has described his own behaviour in a way that strongly suggests IP or perhaps EP temperament. I can see no way of reconciling what he has said about himself with the IJ temperament. And based on what hitta has said himself I think that he believes that INTjs have an IP temperament. If he can prove me wrong, so much the better.

Energy levels have nothing to do, or well at least very little to do with judging functions. What you are arguing is retarded. A judging function is not going to be the determinant in whether a person is impulsive or aggressive in the manner in which I am referring. The perceiving function are the energies of an individual, while the judging functions are what we do with those energies. What the function in the ego block is more important than the termperament(actually I see very little importance in the realm in which we are talking about of the temperament). Temperament has nothing to do with how a person acts or the energies of an individual, its basically whether or not a person chooses a judging function over a perceiving function as their main objective. A judging function is not gonna make a person stable and a perceiving function isn't gonna make a person impulsive and disorganized, that is just stupid retardation, and to see you keep sputtering this shit out of your mouth is gonna give everyone an aneurysm. If this happens in liberal america, we would be able to file lawsuit against the forum and rmcnew. Thats not a good thing. So do us all a favor and fucking think before you talk.

[Phaedrus]

Energy levels have nothing to do, or well at least very little to do with judging functions.

Maybe, maybe not. But it sure as hell has a lot to do with the types. So if it has very little to do with functions that only proves that there is more to a type than a constellation of functions. I don't care which the correct explanation for the phenomenon is, but temperaments exist and they are strongly related to the types in the way that I (and others) have described.

What you are arguing is retarded.

What I am arguing it true. Find a way to reconcile it with your understanding of the types or change your understanding of the types.

A judging function is not going to be the determinant in whether a person is impulsive or aggressive in the manner in which I am referring.

Maybe not, but the introverted types with a leading judging function are simply not impulsive, and they are normally not particularly aggressive either. That fact is an indisputable empirical fact (which is also described in the type descriptions) that must fit the theory -- otherwise there is something wrong with the theory.

The perceiving function are the energies of an individual, while the judging functions are what we do with those energies. What the function in the ego block is more important than the termperament (actually I see very little importance in the realm in which we are talking about of the temperament). Temperament has nothing to do with how a person acts or the energies of an individual, its basically whether or not a person chooses a judging function over a perceiving function as their main objective.

That is not correct.

A judging function is not gonna make a person stable and a perceiving function isn't gonna make a person impulsive and disorganized, that is just stupid retardation, and to see you keep sputtering this shit out of your mouth is gonna give everyone an aneurysm.

So, basically, you dismiss the temperaments as a false view on the types. But the burden of proof is upon you, because in that case you dismiss main stream Socionics as a false theory on the types.

[kensi]

This is a logical flaw. Ni is not the negation of Ne, or vice versa. Otherwise, a Ni creative would have Ne as PoLR, don't you think? Qed.

Ni and Ne are reinterpretations of one another. One is foundational (an unchangeable unconscious base of logic) and the other formal (an ongoing conscious interpretation of the former)

[Hitta]

Maybe, maybe not. But it sure as hell has a lot to do with the types. So if it has very little to do with functions that only proves that there is more to a type than a constellation of functions. I don't care which the correct explanation for the phenomenon is, but temperaments exist and they are strongly related to the types in the way that I (and others) have described.


What I am arguing it true. Find a way to reconcile it with your understanding of the types or change your understanding of the types.


Maybe not, but the introverted types with a leading judging function are simply not impulsive, and they are normally not particularly aggressive either. That fact is an indisputable empirical fact (which is also described in the type descriptions) that must fit the theory -- otherwise there is something wrong with the theory.


That is not correct.


So, basically, you dismiss the temperaments as a false view on the types. But the burden of proof is upon you, because in that case you dismiss main stream Socionics as a false theory on the types.

Um no the argument isn't on me, because temperaments have never even been introduced in socionics, they are a MBTI thing. I mean yea, its been talked about, but its not like someone came out and said.... ooooo this is the idea of the century. Socionics has always been about the functional approach. Hence the fundamental idea behind socionics is Model A.