Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: The introvert/extrovert (object/field) aspect of functions doesn't exist

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Alternative interpretation of Introvert/Extrovert.

    Introvert Judging functions and Introvert Perceiving functions have in common that they are subjective. However, this "subjectivity" refers to two different kinds of subjectivity that are so different that they should not be called under a common name. The first (Introvert Judging) refers to how a certain belief that a person holds is subjective because said belief is not a matter of direct proof, but something the person has come to believe by building a personal model of how the data connects behind the screens. The last (Introverted Perceiving) is subjective in that it signifies the private, personal experience of the person that s/he does not (can not) share with others. These are two different forms of subjectivity. The similarity is weak, and therefore not a good basis for a primary trait in the socionics model.

    Object/field (aka introvert function/extrovert function) is a weak, superficial descriptor. Not a primary trait.

    If any of you want to understand what introversion and extroversion (in relation to TYPES, which I do not dispute the existence of) are really about, try to figure out the Limiting/Empowering and Static/Dynamic dichotomies. Those are what the real substance of socionics lies in.

    Extrovert block: Empowering Perceiving, Limiting Judging
    Introvert block: Limiting Perceiving, Empowering Judging

    Start there, then try to find the right interpretation of the terms...
    Last edited by krieger; 01-27-2009 at 04:45 PM.

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxtres
    Smilex described the semantic content of empowering/limiting in that mega-thread...
    He mostly described it's surface-manifestation. There is still a lot of interpretation work to be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxtres
    but I think the way you xxTjs define this stuff is a little simplistic -- but that's just empowering perceiving on my part heh.
    What's the alternative? Everything else I ever hear sounds like metaphysical BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxtres
    --dynamic extrovert--
    1) limiting judging (dynamic accepting)
    2) empowering perceiving (dynamic creative)

    --static extrovert--
    1) empowering perceiving (static accepting)
    2)limiting judging (static creative)

    --dynamic introvert--
    1) limiting perceiving (dynamic accepting)
    2) empowering judging (dynamic creative)

    --static introvert--
    1) empowering judging (static accepting)
    2) limiting perceiving (static creative)
    The 1) and 2) marks are a little awkward IMO. They are better linked to P and J respectively. P/J is the greatest difference between the kinds of functions that exist. It is the most fundamental divide.

    Here are my interpretations.

    Dynamic = at face value, flat, 1-dimensional
    Static = behind the screens, voluminous, multi-dimensional

    Accepting = simple
    Creating = complex

    Limiting = whole, singular
    Empowering = part, multiplar

    Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic: cue, trigger
    Accepting/Empowering/Static: explosion of hypotheses
    Creating/Empowering/Dynamic: puzzle-piece
    Creating/Limiting/Static: finished puzzle

    That leaves P/J...

    P = object, thing, area
    J = fact expressed of object, relation, dividing line

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wasn't talking about your list. Sorry if it sounded that way.

    How do you process information about the functions as an ENTp? How do you think about them? I suppose it involves some sort of top-down approach?

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lately I've been trying to understand everything, everything in socionics in terms of the dichotomies Accepting/Creating, Static/Dynamic, Limiting/Empowering, Judging/Perceiving, +/- and Internal/External. 6 fundaments, nothing more nothing less.

    To the extent I have been succesful, the introvert/extrovert aspect of functions doesn't enter into the picture anywhere. A reasonable conclusion is that it is simply redundant. It doesn't exist in the way the fundamental dichotomies do.

  5. #5
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Probably the most deeply ingrained misconception in all of socionics...

    If any of you want to understand what introversion and extroversion are really about, try to figure out the Limiting/Empowering and Static/Dynamic dichotomies. Those are what the real substance of socionics lies in.

    Extrovert block: Empowering Perceiving, Limiting Judging
    Introvert block: Limiting Perceiving, Empowering Judging

    Start there, then try to find the right interpretation of the terms...
    If you want to define a dichotomy, what is the point in defining it with more dichotomies such as the ones you use above?

    Also, how can you justify your use of plus and minus functions (I see you have used them on this thread.) A function is a function no matter what it's used for.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    176
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    +Ne is both positivst and empowering -- it can find an idea in anything. It has no framework per se, except what is locally defined as the limitations of the object in question.
    So what is -Ne?

  7. #7
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    On the sadder side of today's news, William of Occam was found dead in his apartment of an apparent suicide.

  8. #8
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    On the sadder side of today's news, William of Occam was found dead in his apartment of an apparent suicide.
    Oh yeah ... I heard he sliced his throat with his razor.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Probably the most deeply ingrained misconception in all of socionics...

    If any of you want to understand what introversion and extroversion are really about, try to figure out the Limiting/Empowering and Static/Dynamic dichotomies. Those are what the real substance of socionics lies in.

    Extrovert block: Empowering Perceiving, Limiting Judging
    Introvert block: Limiting Perceiving, Empowering Judging

    Start there, then try to find the right interpretation of the terms...
    First, what is the limiting/empowering dichotomy? I do not remember it. The way you are using it does not differentiate it from static/dynamic.

    Second, why are you using static/dynamic? It is one of the vaguest Reinin dichotomies and is completely useless unless you absolutely no longer question your type. Its characteristics are very subjective. I also disagree with how you differentiated between static/dynamic. I disagree with most of your understanding of the Reinin dichotomies.
    Surtout, pas trop de zle.

  10. #10
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    On the sadder side of today's news, William of Occam was found dead in his apartment of an apparent suicide.
    ROFL

    Labcoat is an idiot and doesn't deserve the time of day when he feigns these abstract understandings of Socionics; they're just different names for the same old shit. He's tcaud in a slightly less psychotic wrapper.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

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

  11. #11
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    <3
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

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

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

    Default

    The information elements of fields and objects are very real phenomenon, however they are not solely "introverted" or "extroverted', and are not the basis of whether someone is an introvert or extrovert.

    The notion of "field dependence vs independence" are very real phenomenon being studied in psychology, and I strongly believe there is something valid to the field/object dichotomy as it relates to functions.

    http://faculty.mdc.edu/jmcnair/Joe13...dependence.htm

  13. #13
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops
    If you want to define a dichotomy, what is the point in defining it with more dichotomies such as the ones you use above?

    Also, how can you justify your use of plus and minus functions (I see you have used them on this thread.) A function is a function no matter what it's used for.
    I am disputing the existence of introversion/extroversion as an aspect of functions, not as an aspects of types/people or function blocks. I will refer to "introversion/extroversion as an aspect of functions" as field/object from now on. Since field/object has to go, introversion/extroversion as an aspect of function blocks (or types/people) has to be defined in a different way. I end up with this (although I already had this and am only pointing out that it makes field/object redundant):

    Extrovert block: Empowering Perceiving, Limiting Judging
    Introvert block: Limiting Perceiving, Empowering Judging

  14. #14
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    I'm not sure of the full outlines of your system, so I suppose this could be consistent within it. It's just that as an irrational type, this P "object, thing or area" is such a volumonous part of my interaction with reality that it's hard to visualize it as something so discrete and ever so well-defined. J helps me find specific pockets of certainty within this "sea" if you will. I hope that didn't sound like metaphysical tripe, but I can't convey it without painting a mental image anyway, and some metaphysical stuff is to be expected here.
    No, I understand exactly what you are saying and fully agree with it.

    Whenever we speak of an object as something we understand, we generally assume that we know exactly how this object is separated from other objects. As such an object of our understanding is often little more than a collection or organization of facts. It can be difficult to see the object apart from the facts we express of it. It may even be non-sensical to do so in many cases...

    What's really interesting is that we can turn the problem around it's axis and think of facts simply as collections or organizations of the objects of which they are true. The fact "is a member of team A" for example, means little more than "that which is true of all objects that are members of team A". We can not define the meaning of the fact in any other way than to simply state how it is an arbitrary grouping of objects. But in the same way any fact can be seen as an indivisable fundament.

    Hence why it is so useful to think in terms of function blocks rather than functions... That way we simply consider the fact and the object simultaneously and say how the roles are distributed amongst them. Why say Ne+ when you can just say Alpha NT? The latter speaks mores strongly to the imagination.

    (this is a slightly awkward example, because of that thing you mentioned about socionicists saying that one can use the opposite sign of a function.. do they mean one can use function blocks that are not favored in one's type the way smilexian socionics claims one can? this isn't really clear)
    Last edited by krieger; 01-02-2009 at 12:53 PM.

  15. #15
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Static is empowering and dynamic is limiting?
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

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

  16. #16
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That goes for the Accepting functions. For the Creating functions the distributions are opposite.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    That goes for the Accepting functions. For the Creating functions the distributions are opposite.
    What? Wait, I think I get it. However, that makes it a useless difference. More exact, there is no difference between static and empowering and dynamic and limiting.
    Surtout, pas trop de zle.

  18. #18
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why? Don't Creating functions exist in your way of viewing things?

  19. #19
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yet another useless quasi-correlative term derived by labcoat.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

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

  20. #20
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Why? Don't Creating functions exist in your way of viewing things?
    Creating is just a descriptive label applied to the second function in each block. It doesn't have serious theoretical significance.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

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

  21. #21
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Creating is just a descriptive label applied to the second function. It doesn't have serious theoretical significance.
    I agree fully with the first part of the post, but how could you possible arrive at the last part? Is "Ti" of no theoretical significance because it is just a label? Is "ESFj" of no theoretical significance because it is just a label?

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    I agree fully with the first part of the post, but how could you possible arrive at the last part? Is "Ti" of no theoretical significance because it is just a label? Is "ESFj" of no theoretical significance because it is just a label?
    Using your terminology, an Accepting Static extrovert would already have a static creating function. Differentiating between empowering and limiting as you do would be fully covered by the static/dynamic dichotomy (if indeed statics and dynamics each treat their creating functions differently, which I do not see a reason for).
    Surtout, pas trop de zle.

  23. #23
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawCrustle
    Using your terminology, an Accepting Static extrovert would already have a static creating function. Differentiating between empowering and limiting as you do would be fully covered by the static/dynamic dichotomy (if indeed statics and dynamics each treat their creating functions differently, which I do not see a reason for).
    Yes, let me visualize what you're getting at:
    Empowering = Accepting/Static OR Creating/Dynamic
    Limiting = Creating/Static OR Accepting/Dynamic

    A lot of things in socionics are strictly speaking "redundant" because of this principle, take for example Introvert/Extrovert as an aspect of types:
    Introvert = Rational/Static OR Irrational/Dynamic
    Extrovert = Irrational/Satic OR Rational/Dynamic

    or, even more confronting, Alpha NT and Alpha SF:
    Alpha NT = Alpha Static
    Alpha SF = Alpha Dynamic

    Both of those are redundant because you can just use Static/Dynamic in their stead. But that does not make them useless.

    As to wether Empowering/Limiting is useful or useless despite in the strictest sense redundant, this is a matter of experience. Do we find that it makes sense to speak of Static Accepting functions as Empowering when we interface with the type phenomenom in real life? Do we find that this makes sense in the same way it makes sense to speak of Alpha NTs?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawCrustle
    (if indeed statics and dynamics each treat their creating functions differently, which I do not see a reason for)
    Keep an eye out for it. I for one find that they do. That is what this is about. You've underlined it perfectly with the quoted sentence.

  24. #24
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
    Second, why are you using static/dynamic? It is one of the vaguest Reinin dichotomies and is completely useless unless you absolutely no longer question your type. Its characteristics are very subjective.
    Both it's dubious use in practice and it's the subjectivity of it's meaning are mostly due to how it is an extremely abstract descriptor. Also what is useful in practice doesn't always correlate with what is useful in theory. In trying to capture what goes on at the heart of the type mechanism I find it 1 out of 6 of the most powerful descriptors in the whole system.

    Also, I personally have no difficulty spotting it in real life. It is just about the first thing I notice about a person. Dynamics have a different way of carrying themselves, a different way of reacting to stimuli, different body types, etc. The main reason socionicists don't use it is because introvert/extrovert (of types) and rational/irrational have so far been easier for them to write practical descriptions of, and due to the principle we discussed earlier, Static/Dynamic can be made redundant by using those two.

    Gulenko uses Static/Dynamic extensively, though. His opinion of the dichotomy is the same as mine. Smilingeyes on this forum also believes it is one of the most important dichotomies and has at least once written a practical description of it.

  25. #25
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Yet another useless quasi-correlative term derived by labcoat.
    It's nothing that he has invented, it's just the way it is. You should take some time to understand it more deeply, imho, before discounting it so easily.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  26. #26
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    I agree fully with the first part of the post, but how could you possible arrive at the last part? Is "Ti" of no theoretical significance because it is just a label? Is "ESFj" of no theoretical significance because it is just a label?
    Ok, I thought you were trying to make an inference based on the definition of "Creating," which would be analogous to making inferences about Dynamic types based on the definition of the word "Dynamic."

    However, I'm not sure that creating/producing functions necessarily operate in a different way than accepting functions; is there anything to back up this assumption? It sounds like nit-picking to me, but I'm interested in what you have to say.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

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

  27. #27
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    It's nothing that he has invented, it's just the way it is. You should take some time to understand it more deeply, imho, before discounting it so easily.
    I just don't see how it's any more than sticking a label on irrelevant correlations that are pointless in the actual practice of the system.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

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

  28. #28
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I need to have the title of this topic changed. The current formulation is too strong.

    Could some moderator change the title to "alternative interpretation of Introvert/Extrovert", please?

  29. #29
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    However, I'm not sure that creating/producing functions necessarily operate in a different way than accepting functions; is there anything to back up this assumption? It sounds like nit-picking to me, but I'm interested in what you have to say.
    They operate differently if Limiting/Empowering exists. Limiting/Empowering gives rise to the small-cycle Reinin dichotomy Positivist/Negativist, so if you believe in that one, it is a small step to believing in Limiting/Empowering.

    All of the small-cycle Reinin dichotomies are formed by the existence of two different ways of distributing an associated function trait along the + and - side of a function block:

    Taciturn = +Extrovert -Introvert
    Narrator = +Introvert -Extrovert

    Democrat = +Perceiving -Judging
    Aristocrat = +Judging -Perceiving

    Process = +Accepting -Creating
    Result = +Creating -Accepting

    And finally...

    Positivism = +Empowering -Limiting
    Negativism = +Limiting -Empowering

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Taciturn = +Extrovert -Introvert
    Narrator = +Introvert -Extrovert

    Democrat = +Perceiving -Judging
    Aristocrat = +Judging -Perceiving

    Process = +Accepting -Creating
    Result = +Creating -Accepting

    And finally...

    Positivism = +Empowering -Limiting
    Negativism = +Limiting -Empowering
    Isn't this wrong? For instance, an ESE has (in the way I understand + and -, which is as a construct of positivism and negativism) +Fe and -Si, which would make it an aristocrat.

    And the existence of the relationship among the first three dichotomies can exist (if it does exist) without it having to exist in the positivism/negativism dichotomy.
    Surtout, pas trop de zle.

  31. #31
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
    Isn't this wrong? For instance, an ESE has (in the way I understand + and -, which is as a construct of positivism and negativism) +Fe and -Si, which would make it an aristocrat.
    No, they have +Si and -Fe. Check your reference materials. The easiest way to keep track of the + and - signs is to consider the following:

    S F N T S etc - take any two adjacent of these and you've got a Club. The function letter on the left of the sequence is +, the one on the right is -.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
    And the existence of the relationship among the first three dichotomies can exist (if it does exist) without it having to exist in the positivism/negativism dichotomy.
    Sure. It isn't a strictly deductive argument. Very few arguments in socionics are. It just stands out that if these four dichotomies are treated the same way, it isn't such a big step to assume they derive from the same principle. Don't you think there is something *missing* from the model if you remove Limiting/Empowering and say Positive/Negative just springs up from out of nowhere?

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    No, they have +Si and -Fe. Check your reference materials. The easiest way to keep track of the + and - signs is to consider the following:

    S F N T S etc - take any two adjacent of these and you've got a Club. The function letter on the left of the sequence is +, the one on the right is -.
    No. -Fe appears in the ego functions of only Betas. A +Si -Fe does not exist. Do not know why, but that is the way the theory is structured and that is one of the many reasons (one of the biggest being that they are baseless) I do not use +/-.

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Sure. It isn't a strictly deductive argument. Very few arguments in socionics are. It just stands out that if these four dichotomies are treated the same way, it isn't such a big step to assume they derive from the same principle. Don't you think there is something *missing* from the model if you remove Limiting/Empowering and say Positive/Negative just springs up from out of nowhere?
    No. The actual dichotomies are derived from "multiplying" a certain number of the four Jungian dichotomies together. In that sense, it actually makes no sense to disregard the introvert/extrovert dichotomy by clarifying it with other Reinin dichotomies as a lot of the Reinin dichotomies are based off the existing understanding of introvert/extrovert. +/-, in fact, is partially based off the introvert/extrovert dichotomy.
    Surtout, pas trop de zle.

  33. #33
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No. -Fe appears in the ego functions of only Betas. A +Si -Fe does not exist. Do not know why, but that is the way the theory is structured and that is one of the many reasons (one of the biggest being that they are baseless) I do not use +/-.
    Alpha SFs have +Si and -Fe. Betas have +Fe. You haven't checked your reference materials.

    No. The actual dichotomies are derived from "multiplying" a certain number of the four Jungian dichotomies together.
    That is how they are given a name. That is not how they attain actual meaning and significance. According to this principle I would be able to take INTj, ENFp and ISFp together and define a term for them that all three posess and no other type does. Useless.

    In that sense, it actually makes no sense to disregard the introvert/extrovert dichotomy by clarifying it with other Reinin dichotomies as a lot of the Reinin dichotomies are based off the existing understanding of introvert/extrovert. +/-, in fact, is partially based off the introvert/extrovert dichotomy.
    The only Reinin dichotomy that relies on introvert/extrovert is Taciturn/Narrator. The others can be found by interposing different things. Sure, you can use i/e to find them, but it isn't the only way. They can be found just fine without i/e.

  34. #34
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  35. #35
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    but they are so obvious when typing that i consider them very useful.
    That is the whole point. Judging/perceiving is a stronger descriptor than introvert/extrovert, so it should be used as a primary dichotomy rather than secundary.

    Introvert Judging functions and Introvert Perceiving functions have in common that they are subjective. However, this "subjectivity" refers to two different kinds of subjectivity that are so different that they should not be called under a common name. The first (Introvert Judging) refers to how a certain belief that a person holds is subjective because said belief is not a matter of direct proof, but something the person has come to believe by building a personal model of how the data connects behind the screens. The last (Introverted Perceiving) is subjective in that it signifies the private, personal experience of the person that s/he does not (can not) share with others. These are two different forms of subjectivity. The similarity is weak, and therefore not a good basis for a primary trait in the socionics model.

    Object/field (introvert/extrovert) is a weak, superficial descriptor. Not a primary dichotomy.

    can you bring examples from the real life in which the Empowering/Limiting is used?
    Here's an attempt:

    ENTps use Empowering/Accepting Ne. INTjs use Limiting/Creating Ne. The former uses his/her ability to generate ideas solely as a means to an end, a way of getting to an answer. The latter uses it as bastion of certitude. INTjs build on their ideas, constucting them further and further so that they more and more suit their purpose. ENTps keep changing their ideas so they don't need to invest in a single idea and can stay manouverable.

  36. #36
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  37. #37
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For information on Limiting/Empowering:
    http://the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=22628

    Accepting is the stuff that is understood as soon as it is picked up.
    Creating is the stuff that is only understood when it has been looked at from many perspectives. One's understanding of these things needs to be constructed from the ground up.

    Accepting = Limiting when Dynamic, Empowering when Static
    Creating = Empowering when Dynamic, Limiting when Static

    Limiting/empowering is difficult to capture... but powerful. There are a number of different ways to distinguish either that aren't easy to reconcile though they certainly are united in one concept:

    Limiting: necessitated
    Empowering: contingent
    Limiting: fully determined
    Empowering: under-determined
    Limiting: in it's final state
    Empowering: in a transient state
    Limiting: must be
    Empowering: could be
    Limiting: singular (one possibility)
    Empowering: multiplar (many possibilities)

    I sometimes call Empowering "arbitrary". Not sure what the counterpart term is.

    -- some of these describe the catagory of information while others describe a single unit that is a member of said catagory. For example, Empowering information is an under-determined catagory of information, which means it's individual members are contingent/arbitrary.

    Accepting info is very safe and unpretentious. No one can disagree with it. It simply acknowledges something that exists.
    Creating info is daring and precipitous. It's relyability depends on a great number of previous occasions. It may very well be wrong.

    Interpose the two foregoing dichotomies with Static/Dynamic and you get some real cool stuff:
    Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic: things that are simply acknowledged at face value. Pick it up and use it. No questions about it. Very safe and certain.
    Creating/Limiting/Static: something encapsulated as a unit of understanding. Constructed from many observations and finalized after a long process of learning.
    Accepting/Empowering/Static: something that was suggested as a possibility by one's direct observations. Something that could or could not be useful but undenyably exists as one of the many possibities.
    Creating/Empowering/Dynamic: tricky... Something that is there but you don't know why. It invites wonder and curiousity. It can easily be copied and used but one would not know the significance of ones actions if one did. If a person ever does know what this kind of information is all about, it becomes the vessel of the person's most virtuous efforts. Application of a difficult to understand concept.

    What we more or less learn from this:
    Statics are all about boldly guessing things, bumping one's head, and finding out there are things you can't get around.
    Dynamics are all about first behaving predictably and unpretentiously, then upon learning what's going on making the right moves with great erudition and skill.

    Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic: I know this
    Creating/Limiting/Static: I understand this
    Accepting/Empowering/Static: this could be
    Creating/Empowering/Dynamic: I see this, but why?
    Last edited by krieger; 01-26-2009 at 12:29 AM.

  38. #38
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    http://the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=17804

    Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic: A constatation. The event of noticing a piece of data that both invites new speculations and puts a limit on the possible situations outside. Also the activity of processing this data in the most meticulous way, tracking all possible oppurtunities to ruminate -- though not investing in a particular ruminatory attempt -- taking data for what it is and drawing sound conclusions from it.

    Accepting/Empowering/Static: A rumination. An attempt at fitting an observation into a larger context, the result of which is taken to be contingent, one amongst many possible options and in itself not to be taken very seriously. Despite one's lacking faith in the rumination's validity one explores it in full with one's full reserve of attention. The act of studying a single element out of large number of options and not sticking to the findings. Any point made from this kind of function is one of the format: "this is possible state of affairs" althought this particular format of speech is often forgone in favor of more determined phraseology (something that often confuses people who are of different dispositions than the speaker).

    Creating/Limiting/Static: A theoretical limitation. A factor that persisted through all attempted speculations. A part of reality that was found to limit the reach of one's imagination such that one was forced to acknowledge it as absolute. A principle that one comes to realize as impossible to ignore after long periods of deliberation. Also a product that one can transfer to others in the format of a belief to be either accepted or rejected by every recipient.

    Creating/Empowering/Dynamic: An enigma. A frivolous, contingent expression of a principle operating behind the screens. The part of an observation that one wishes to understand but rarely does in an immediate way. A missing piece in the puzzle of ones understanding that only falls in place once one is met with the principle or law that brought the pertaining expression about. Also a reproduction of an expression of a principle that one does know, an application of a law allowing erudite, flairful behavior with a high degree of correctness in relation to the standards to which said behavior is held. The claim that a certain observable thing is true made from firm knowledge of what one is talking about.

  39. #39
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Initial post changed to include the reason for discarding object/field (introvert function/extorvert function).

Posting Permissions

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