Preference Extremes

[jason_m]

These are what I think would be the extremes of the four preferences: logic, ethics, intuition, and sensing.

1. Logic. Complete excess: Functioning like a computer. All information would be consciously and systematically processed, calculated, carried out, etc.
Complete deficiency: All of your decisions would be made by feelings and instinct alone, whether they be made by ethics, sensations, or intuition.

2. Ethics. Complete excess: You would experience extreme emotions all the time, similarly to what it would be like in heaven or hell.
Complete deficiency: You would be like a computer in that you would have no emotion whatsoever.

3. Intuition Complete excess: ESP.
Complete deficiency: Everything you do would be done out of routine and every one of your thoughts would be patently obvious. You would have no ability to do anything novel or think anything insightful.

4. Sensation. Complete excess: Being in "the zone" the way athletes can be. You wouldn't consciously think anything, you'd just know how to automatically respond to your environment/body.
Complete deficiency: You would just be a brain without a body or environment that you respond to. You would have thoughts, feelings, and ideas, but no concrete perceptions.

Jason

[Elro]

These are what I think would be the extremes of the four preferences: logic, ethics, intuition, and sensing.

1. Logic. Complete excess: Functioning like a computer. All information would be consciously and systematically processed, calculated, carried out, etc.
Complete deficiency: All of your decisions would be made by feelings and instinct alone, whether they be made by ethics, sensations, or intuition.

2. Ethics. Complete excess: You would experience extreme emotions all the time, similarly to what it would be like in heaven or hell.
Complete deficiency: You would be like a computer in that you would have no emotion whatsoever.

3. Intuition Complete excess: ESP.
Complete deficiency: Everything you do would be done out of routine and every one of your thoughts would be patently obvious. You would have no ability to do anything novel or think anything insightful.

4. Sensation. Complete excess: Being in "the zone" the way athletes can be. You wouldn't consciously think anything, you'd just know how to automatically respond to your environment/body.
Complete deficiency: You would just be a brain without a body or environment that you respond to. You would have thoughts, feelings, and ideas, but no concrete perceptions.

Jason

Is this MBTI or Socionics? I question the intuition stuff especially.

[jason_m]

Is this MBTI or Socionics? I question the intuition stuff especially.

I'm talking Socionics, but the functions are very similar. I don't see what's wrong with the intuition section, and I find it interesting that someone would "question" something as open-ended as this.

Jason

[Elro]

How is intuition taken to an extreme ESP? How is the lack of it being routine and all that? INjs can be very into routine, but aren't deficient in Ne. Are SxE-Ses very routine? I don't see the ESP thing at all - intuition is not about reading people's minds or otherwise magical powers. Taken to an extreme I would think it would be more how you describe the weak sensing thing - detached from one's surroundings, always in one's head. (That probably applies to Ni types a little more than Ne types, though I think it applies to both.)

I'm not trying to offend, it's just reminding me a lot of MBTI dichotomies.

[jason_m]

How is intuition taken to an extreme ESP?

Because intuition means that you are able to comprehend something without conscious knowledge. For example, how Ni is able to predict future events, or how Ne can spot valid opportunities that no one else can see. They are the hunches that pop into your head out of nowhere, without having consciously reasoned them out. The extreme form of knowing something without being aware of why is ESP; there isn't one good reason why someone with ESP would believe what they believe, yet the answers would be true.

How is the lack of it being routine and all that? INjs can be very into routine, but aren't deficient in Ne. Are SxE-Ses very routine?

Here is a quote from the ILE profile at Wikisocion:

"He is acutely aware of what interests and what bores him. This leads him to always search for novelty and surprising things."

The opposite of searching for novelty and surprising things is doing the same thing all the time. That describes Ne and that is where the first part of the description comes from. The second part describes thinking only obvious thoughts and comes from the fact that Ni can see the underlying meaning of things. The opposite of seeing the underlying meaning of something is observing the obvious.

As you can see, these aren't the only answers that you could come up with. There are many aspects to the functions that I haven't covered, and many things that could contradict what I said. That's why I think it's so open-ended. I don't think you could come up with any very accurate answers without getting too complicated.

Jason

[Joy]

"Sensory" isn't the opposite of ILE. There are irrational sensory types (like a lot of IP's and EP's) who aren't into routines, either.

[jason_m]

"Sensory" isn't the opposite of ILE. There are irrational sensory types (like a lot of IP's and EP's) who aren't into routines, either.

I never said that sensation is opposite to intuition. I said that without intuition, you would not be able to do the things that I mentioned. As for the point about some sensory types not liking routine, I mentioned that this is too complicated to give a completely accurate account in a simple fashion. There will be things that don't fit perfectly, but that's what you get when you're dealing with something so open-ended. I think the problem is that I was trying to capture the opposite of both Ne and Ni, and by doing so you discriminate against some types. Perhaps instead of saying that lack of intution leads to doing everything through routine and lacking insights, I should have said the same but replaced "and" with the word "or."

Jason

[FDG]

I'd say your ideas are good but wouldn't they become much simpler if you were to unify in a single polarity a lack of -insert functionX- with an overabudance of -insert functionY-?

So, an over-abudance of sensing would imply both being always in-the-zone and tendency to miss possibilities (rather than sticking to a routine: sticking to a routine requires a conscious decision to do so, being trapped in a routine might just be due to missed possibilities), so on for ethics-logic

[strrrng]

sounds generic/mbti'ish

[jason_m]

sounds generic/mbti'ish

So, if you were to, for example, describe both introverted and extroverted logic together, what wouldn't sound "generic"? Could you give an example of how you would deal with one of the four functions without it sounding "bad"?

Jason

[leckysupport]

1. Logic. Complete excess: Functioning like a computer. All information would be consciously and systematically processed, calculated, carried out, etc.
Complete deficiency: All of your decisions would be made by feelings and instinct alone, whether they be made by ethics, sensations, or intuition.

I think a complete deficiency of logic would be better described as a state where you have no idea what you, anyone or anything else doing or why and how to do it any better.

2. Ethics. Complete excess: You would experience extreme emotions all the time, similarly to what it would be like in heaven or hell.
Complete deficiency: You would be like a computer in that you would have no emotion whatsoever.

For deficiencies maybe also inhumane and unethical, inability to relate to anyone never mind sympathize or understand.

[jason_m]

I think a complete deficiency of logic would be better described as a state where you have no idea what you, anyone or anything else doing or why and how to do it any better.

I think that's a good description. I'm not sure if it's better than mine, but I think that it very well could be.

For deficiencies maybe also inhumane and unethical, inability to relate to anyone never mind sympathize or understand.

That's a good point.

I don't mind criticism of my ideas, so long as it's fair. When someone says that they're "all bad", I have to wonder whether they are really being fair to me.

Jason

[strrrng]

So, if you were to, for example, describe both introverted and extroverted logic together, what wouldn't sound "generic"? Could you give an example of how you would deal with one of the four functions without it sounding "bad"?

Jason

I wouldn't make a thread like this