Loopholes

[tereg]

Something that has always intrigued me and befuddles me is the process by which a loophole can be found in a rule or law or something similar.

What I mean by that is, it's sort of a mystery to me how this is accomplished. I've found myself countless times looking at a rule or law and just seeing it for what it is and what it covers. Whenever someone then says "Hey! The rule doesn't say you can't do this!", I usually can see what it is that they're saying, but I wouldn't have been able to come up with it myself. It's always been a blind spot and it's something that I've never been able to do (not that I'd want to exploit things in such ways) even if I "tried".

So, this is not a question of the propensity of a person to use loopholes, nor is it a question of trying to show me how people find loopholes, nor is this an ethical statement about finding loopholes. I'm not interested in knowing how it's done to use it for my own benefit. Rather, I'm just rather curious as to what is it socionically that is done that allows a person to see these openings in structures.

[BurntOrange]

IDK, it usually just seems obvious to me. Maybe I start by thinking with my goal in mind, rather than the rule in mind, then I think about the rule in specific regards to how I can accomplish my goal, rather than starting with the rule in mind then thinking about the goal with the rule already accepted. It's easier for me to alter the rule than my goal

[tereg]

That's really interesting.

I find it extremely difficult to have any goal in mind without it being inextricably linked to the rule. Without the rule, my goals are sort of... it's like a fog almost with no sense of direction. I have a difficult time formulating concrete goals without seeing some sort of guideline as to how to accomplish it first.

[tereg]

Actually, what I said isn't entirely true.

I can have a vision for what I want to accomplish if it's, say, a project I want to work on. But usually what I want to accomplish isn't necessarily dictated by a rule or law. Like if I want to make a video blog or I want to design a website, I can sort of visualize the end product and the means by which I can accomplish this. But I'm not bound by rules or laws by undertaking such endeavors, but I have an idea of how I want to accomplish these tasks.

I guess what I mean is, is within this context of loopholes, I can't really think of goals that I have that would be related to well-established rules or laws.

I can't even think of any loopholes where this might be applicable in my life.

But I'm trying to convey this image that within the context of a structure or rule or whatever, I find it difficult to think outside of the box, instead most of my thinking is done within the parameters of the structure when visualizing what I want to do or can do. Without the structure in these circumstances, the goal is not well-established enough in my mind to do anything useful.

[dbmmama]

Something that has always intrigued me and befuddles me is the process by which a loophole can be found in a rule or law or something similar.

What I mean by that is, it's sort of a mystery to me how this is accomplished. I've found myself countless times looking at a rule or law and just seeing it for what it is and what it covers. Whenever someone then says "Hey! The rule doesn't say you can't do this!", I usually can see what it is that they're saying, but I wouldn't have been able to come up with it myself. It's always been a blind spot and it's something that I've never been able to do (not that I'd want to exploit things in such ways) even if I "tried".

So, this is not a question of the propensity of a person to use loopholes, nor is it a question of trying to show me how people find loopholes, nor is this an ethical statement about finding loopholes. I'm not interested in knowing how it's done to use it for my own benefit. Rather, I'm just rather curious as to what is it socionically that is done that allows a person to see these openings in structures.

i'm not sure socionically. my hubby does this very, very easily. very naturally.

edit: kinda george castanza or kramer like....

[tcaudilllg]

Consider a strategy to acheive your goal. Now test this strategy against the rules that are in place. Do the rules prohibit all aspects of the strategy? Find the part of the strategy that is not explicitly prohibited, and you have found the loophole you've been searching for. Now build a strategy around this loophole.

Shadow types are superb at this stuff, especially ISFjs. (you can thank them for the spam in your mailbox).

[tereg]

I guess the same thing goes for when a rule or law is established and another person says "This rule is stupid! You could just go around it by doing _____. What were they thinking when they made this rule?" Same sort of thing. Whenever a new rule or law is established, I just sort of accept it at face value. It's only when somebody else points out its flaws or holes that I then become aware of why it is so.

[tereg]

Consider a strategy to acheive your goal. Now test this strategy against the rules that are in place. Do the rules prohibit all aspects of the strategy? Find the part of the strategy that is not explicitly prohibited, and you have found the loophole you've been searching for. Now build a strategy around this loophole.

This of course assumes that the strategy is sound enough in order to bring to light those aspects that are not prohibited by the rules. I can't make that assumption.

I might have a plan in place to accomplish something. But as soon as I see a roadblock to accomplish it, I trash it and redo it to work within the context of the rules.

Edit: I'd be lying if I said I've never used a loophole before (loopholes that were already discovered), but I guess there have been other instances where if I have a plan to do something, but already am aware of the loophole then take that avenue to accomplish it.

But that's not what this thread is about. Again, in circumstances where I know of no loophole, it's still a bit of a mystery how people actually find them. Because, again, if I come across a roadblock with a strategy in place I'm trying to use, I modify my strategy, not the structures that cause the roadblock.

[Mediator Kam]

yeah, it doesn't seem that hard to think of a loophole in a law. When I hear a law that is a bit stupid or affects me in some way, I immediately think of ways that the rule could be bent.

[tereg]

So it's becoming clear to me that it's some sort of in combination with another element in order to have the insight to find these holes.

But is it or ?

[tereg]

tbh I don't see how any type is incapable of doing that.

I'm not really trying to figure out what types can do this. I'm trying to figure out what elements are in play in order to accomplish this sort of thing.

[Park]

IDK, it usually just seems obvious to me. Maybe I start by thinking with my goal in mind, rather than the rule in mind, then I think about the rule in specific regards to how I can accomplish my goal, rather than starting with the rule in mind then thinking about the goal with the rule already accepted. It's easier for me to alter the rule than my goal

I do exactly the same.

yeah, it doesn't seem that hard to think of a loophole in a law. When I hear a law that is a bit stupid or affects me in some way, I immediately think of ways that the rule could be bent.

Yeah.

[tereg]

Yes, but to attribute it to ? What about PoLR types such as ESFps and ENFps? Are they bad at finding loopholes? Err I doubt it.

It's not solely a thing, imo. I think that the aspect of that is required to accomplish something like this is having a certain individual comfort level (and, as a result, affinity) with it. It is not solely a thing however. I am not making this suggestion, nor am I suggesting that some types are more apt than others.

I am simply trying to determine what is going on socionically when someone does accomplish it.

[strrrng]

I am simply trying to determine what is going on socionically when someone does accomplish it.

Who says anything socionically is going on when someone does it? You use your functions as metabolic processes; they can't be attributed to such behavioral acts. Anyone can find a loophole; it's the manner in which they conceptualize it that will rest on their functions

[tereg]

Who says anything socionically is going on when someone does it? You use your functions as metabolic processes; they can't be attributed to such behavioral acts. Anyone can find a loophole; it's the manner in which they conceptualize it that will rest on their functions

I don't understand what the difference is. Nonetheless, this is what I'm trying to get at.

[strrrng]

I don't understand what the difference is. Nonetheless, this is what I'm trying to get at.

The difference is that it's not the act itself that determines function usage. Each person can and will do this (unless they're too dumb).

[tereg]

Just so I'm CRYSTAL clear about what my position is.


Obviously any type can find a loophole. My question is more about what is in play when a person conceptualizes and processes the situation in order to find them.

[tereg]

asdfjksladjfl;jasdlf;j kasld;fj l;askd jfl;as jdkl;f jkasdlf;jka



this thread is pissing me off now

Edit: Look, I'm spending all of this energy having to explain that I'm looking for a more refined and granular look at the conceptualization of analyzing these situations. I've already said several times now that my intent is not to figure out what types are more apt to do this than others. It is simply because this concept is a bit of a blind spot to me, and I was hoping that this could potentially be explained socionically. THAT'S IT.

Are we clear now?

[strrrng]

Rules + Real Conditions ?
Rules + Imaginary Conditions ?

No. This is a vast simplification of the functions.

Finding a loophole in a rule does not in any way equate to usage of a specific function. If someone wants to attribute it to an "information aspect," which is just an external reification of a function that sheds virtually no light on how the function actually works, be my guest, lol.

[strrrng]

Obviously any type can find a loophole. My question is more about what is in play when a person conceptualizes and processes the situation in order to find them.

And as I've already stated, each type will use its own functions in a specific way to conceptualize it - that is obvious.

You are the one who brought up Ti in regards to this subject matter.

[tereg]

And as I've already stated, each type will use its own functions in a specific way to conceptualize it - that is obvious.

You are the one who brought up Ti in regards to this subject matter.

I brought up because I think it is in my opinion that plays an important role in being able to conceptualize this.

This is not to say that weak types cannot conceptualize it. I'm just saying independently that it has an important role in one being able to visualize and execute this process.

Edit: This is also not to say that is the only element at play here. It was an impression I got from the responses up to that point.

[dbmmama]

And as I've already stated, each type will use its own functions in a specific way to conceptualize it - that is obvious.

You are the one who brought up Ti in regards to this subject matter.

it isn't obvious to him. he wants to know WHAT is going on for each element as it finds the loophole. (i think)

[strrrng]

I brought up because I think it is in my opinion that plays an important role in being able to conceptualize this.

Really? Explain why you think it plays an important role in it.

This is not to say that weak types cannot conceptualize it. I'm just saying independently that it has an important role in one being able to visualize and execute this process.

What do you mean, 'independently'? Functions aren't independent things. And again, how does Ti have any more importance in this process than any other function?

Edit: Look, I'm spending all of this energy having to explain that I'm looking for a more refined and granular look at the conceptualization of analyzing these situations.

If you want a refined view, do some neurological research. Otherwise, you won't get anything more than peoples' bullshit interpretations of which functions perform specific processes in reality.

I've already said several times now that my intent is not to figure out what types are more apt to do this than others. It is simply because this concept is a bit of a blind spot to me, and I was hoping that this could potentially be explained socionically. THAT'S IT.

If it's a blind spot, why not just accept that, instead of looking for an explanation through socionics. Because it can't be explained socionically, and I've said that multiple times, lol.

THE PROCESS OF FINDING LOOPHOLES IS IN NO WAY INHERENTLY CONNECTED TO ANY GIVEN FUNCTION

[tereg]

Really? Explain why you think it plays an important role in it.

First of all, before I answer this, I need to state once again, that I do not think that it is solely that this is attributable to. I think there is another information aspect in play. Having said that, in my mind, in this instance, at least in my mind, should be about conceptualizing and understanding the structure that is in place (in this case, the rules or laws that dictate the structure). Being able to correctly conceptualize and understand the structure more than just simply superficially seeing the structure at face value (at least, I think it's this way) is critical in determining where weak points are within the structure. If I take a rule or structure at face value, then I don't have the intuition nor the understanding of the essence of the structure in order to correctly find the structure's weak points.

If I see the skeleton of a building, what would I see? I would more than likely just see the overview of the building. The beams that make the structure (the manifestation of what makes the structure). What does it take in order to determine if the building is structurally sound? It takes an understanding of how that structure was erected and intuitively knowing based on its blueprint if there are discrepancies between the building's original intent and its finished state. By not having this intuition nor the knowledge of the basis of the structure, I cannot determine the structure's weak points.

This is why I think is important, but I sense that more is going on than simply conceptualizing the structure.

What do you mean, 'independently'? Functions aren't independent things.

No, I'm not saying the function is independent. I'm using independent to explain this isolated situation in how a person looks at a rule, law or structure and can determine ways around it.

THE PROCESS OF FINDING LOOPHOLES IS IN NO WAY INHERENTLY CONNECTED TO ANY GIVEN FUNCTION

Again, I'm not looking for the manifestation of or the manifestation of processing how to find loopholes.

I am looking for how a person takes in the information and conceptualizes the process and how this might be explained socionically. Before any sort of action actually takes place, what is it that the person is metabolizing when they have a goal in mind and in determining how to achieve said goal.

And I don't believe the two are the same in this case. Something is being processed and metabolized in order to effectively do this.

[tereg]

If it's a blind spot, why not just accept that, instead of looking for an explanation through socionics. Because it can't be explained socionically, and I've said that multiple times, lol.

Maybe I want to gain understanding or perspective in something I don't understand or that I'm curious about. If it ends up that it can't be explained socionically, fine. I still want to try to gain understanding or perspective for things I don't understand or things that confuse me.

[aestrivex]

tereg: here's the answer you want.


there are a variety of different ways that people could perceive loopholes. for example, Ni people consider might loopholes in an attempt for thoroughness (ie, i can foresee that this process will lead to this possible circumstance which is not covered by this rule... so i cannot predict any further; i need more information on what this rule does in this instance).

Ne types might see things in a similar fashion; though they are less concerned about the development of a situation or idea, the very idea of certain odd situations might be appealing for them to consider.


the reason why you're receiving such an adamantly similar response seems to be that people believe you're IEE, and find difficulty using this typing to justify the experiences you're describing of not being able to see these kinds of loopholes.

Se and Si might be correspondingly more incapable of generating these kinds of loopholes, unless they apply to practical or realistic circumstances which directly affect them.

to me the mindset that you've described makes perfect sense (perhaps as a Te mechanism) from a standpoint of seeing the rule for what it is or for what it's meant to dictate in a given situation and not for nitpicking it for infinitely many situations.

i'm inclined to agree with everybody in this thread that it might be something of an issue about a need for Ti consistency (ie the rule is not systematically complete unless it is applicable in every possible circumstance; otherwise it is flawed).

due to the fact that it's a questionable piece of material to begin with, i'd also agree with the people who say that it's possibly related to Ti, and not of much additional use.

[tereg]

Thank you Kioshi and niffweed. Those answers were more along the line of what I was seeking.