Processing Information
I like lists. I made one of how different functions handle info. Please analyze and correct it. I'm very sure I got the Ts and the Si right.
: Memorizing Facts
: Refiguring Facts
: Refiguring Emotions
: Memorizing Emotions
: Memorizing the Future
: Refiguring the Future
: Memorizing the Past
: Refiguring the Past
I want to take Director Abbie out on a date. What should I bring?
It's Binky bitch.
See not the unsmiling lips and icy eyes,
And hear not the silence after.
Look instead as the mime hypnotizes
And listen to the laughter.
Those aren't functions. They are informational metabolism elements (IME's) and this is how they process information:
Se: external statics of objects
Te: external dynamics of objects
Ti: external statics of fields
Si: external dynamics of fields
Ne: internal statics of objects
Fe: internal dynamics of objects
Fi: internal statics of fields
Ni: internal dynamics of fields
Also I disagree with everything on your list.
Not trying to be a bast.... but you're wrong =)
The end is nigh
This pretty much summarizes my feelings on the matter.Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
I don't understand the meaning ofI like lists. I made one of how different functions handle info. Please analyze and correct it. I'm very sure I got the Ts and the Si right.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Sensing isn't about the past... it's usually described as being about the present, although that isn't exactly it either.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Using the term "sensing" is only going to cause further confusion because percieving Se is miles apart from percieving Si.
Totally different mechanisms, it boggles me why people cling to the 4 jungian dichotomies.
The end is nigh
Phoey...your explanations are complexly worded.
Rick's page on information elements is definitely one of the best I've read.
But in summary:
External/Internal - A subtle difference really. Kind of hard to pinpoint precisely, but External deals with the more concrete while Internal deals with the more abstract.
Dynamic/Static - Implies a sense of motion. Dynamic is fluid, deals with things as if they are constantly changing and interacting, think of things rolling outwards. Static deals with things in instants or snap shots, rather than rolling outwards it builds in singular pieces.
Object/Field - An objective/subjective dichotomy. Object is more observational while Field is more judgmental (not to mistaken with judging and perceiving). Object classifies information by seeing what is going on, Field classifies information by deciding what is going on.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
Nonsense. Sensing is everything that is external and perceiving; if both external and perceiving are meaningful dichotomies, then external-perceiving (or Sensing) is a meaningful group.
I favor the Smilexian approach, which uses every Reinin dichotomy plus a few more... what approach are you using? The Ashtonian?
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Im using my own system in which Im cherry picking things I like and discarding that which I don't =)
I have discarded perceiving and judging as meaningful dichotomies.
All information elements are experienced by perception and you can make judgements about the information with all of them afterwards.
I correlate closest with "ashtonian" but I wouldn't say I'm "ashtonian"
The end is nigh
OK, so the conclusion I draw from this is...
I can't reasonably include
Is there a reasonable way to cluster
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
yes thats what I've been getting at.
I cluster in the following way:
statics of objects (internal or external)
dynamics of objects (internal or external)
statics of fields (internal or external)
dynamics of fields (internal or external)
so we have 4 groupings and each one has 2 ways of manifesting (internal or external)
The end is nigh
Although dichotomies might be seen as incomplete/clumsy etc for use in theory, they are effective in practice. It just depends what you want out of socionics.
BTW I agree that the opening post doesn't make sense.
Ni connects and synthesizes ideas. It's not all about refiguring the future. I'm sorry but that's a very rough/crude way of looking at things. It's like... you're telling one small fact about what Ni does, but that's a really poor way of describing what it does 'in a nutshell.' Internal dynamics of fields is just, more accurate and 'whole.'
That's why Ni (introverted intuition) is about, writing, about internal worlds in one's own head; about connecting ideas, see how ideas play out in a certain atmosphere. We infps want our wishes to come true, or we want our fantasies ripped apart from us cruelly to learn an ethical lesson - both have to ignore Te in order to do so. (as Ironically enough, Te can both give us what we want and never give us what we want)- and we don't want things to be that matter-of-factly, detailed-base or simple.
I would say Se is much more about willpower, motivation than 'external stasis of objects' I agree less with Se than the Ni version. I would say Se as a *psychological* function (people act as if Se is somehow sort of some purely tangible process but that isn't true, they're all psychological and all more internal, just some are more 'integrated' and 'Less Pure' than others) Se is more about pure raw willpower about 'Okay, I want to do THAT and then THIS and ahhh.' Ni and Se need each other to me for those reasons. Ni gets lost in too many ideas, too many connections and pathways- it needs to PICK A PATH. Se gives it the willpower to do that, but without Ni- Se is impulsive with no true meaning. It has to have the relationships 'mean something' with the high idealsm of Ni.
infps already know the right thing to do in situations, already are so keenly aware of the intelligent and ethical course of action is. That's not the problem. We just need to WANT something badly enough. We just want to want it, to want to get it done, to feel the thrill and zest of life that our high ideals mind interconnects effortlessly.
Se perceives actual, tangible, physical variables in things.
So when an Se-er wants change they desire to make things actually physical different.
So intimidation or forcible possesion of "territory" are things that they can perceive and understand best.
Thats why Se's are often "aggressive."
The end is nigh
You can derive 4 new Reinin-friendly dichotomies from objects-fields, static-dynamic, external-internal dichotomies. One of them isOK, so the conclusion I draw from this is...
I can't reasonably include
Is there a reasonable way to cluster
If I'm allowed to derive dichotomies a la Reinin, then I can derive a grouping ofYou can derive 4 new Reinin-friendly dichotomies from objects-fields, static-dynamic, external-internal dichotomies. One of them is
In fact
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Interesting, maybe someone would need to write how the IM's differ in the aspect of changing things, instead of just perceiving.
.
The following is pretty obvious shit, but it's probably good to lay it out:
so the only way that
So you could make the case that Se/Ni and Ne/Si are mutually exclusive and Te/Fi and Fe/Ti are mutually exclusive therefore...
[Se/Ni, Ne/Si] are grouped because they cannot both be valued by a quadra and [Te/Fi, Fe/Ti] are grouped for the same reason.
So the quadra's are:
[Ne/Si] [Fe/Ti] - Alpha
[Se/Ni] [Fe/Ti] - Beta
[Se/Ni] [Te/Fi] - Gamma
[Ne/Si] [Te/Fi] - Delta
So one could make the case that
The end is nigh
Also Im fine with referring to [Se/Ni, Ne/Si] by a certain group name and the same with [Te/Fi, Fe/Ti]...
but P/J is just BS and does not reflect why they are actually in separate groups.
The end is nigh
You can not...I do not allow you to do that, nor is it possible.If I'm allowed to derive dichotomies a la Reinin, then I can derive a grouping of
EXTERNAL FUNCTIONS: Te Se Ti Si
INTERNAL FUNCTIONS: Ne Fe Ni Fi
STATIC FUNCTIONS:Se Ne Ti Fi
DYNAMIC FUNCTIONS:Te Fe Si Ni
OBJECT FUNCTIONS: Te Fe Se Ne
FIELD FUNCTIONS:Ti Fi Si Ni
EXTERNAL STATIC+INTERNAL DYNAMIC FUNCTIONS:Fe Ti Se Ni, also known as beta-quadra-valued-functions.
EXTERNAL DYNAMIC+INTERNAL STATIC FUNCTIONS:Te Fi Ne Si, also known as delta-quadra-valued-functions.
EXTERNAL OBJECT+INTERNAL FIELD FUNCTIONS:Te Se Fi Ni, also known as gamma-quadra-valued-functions.
EXTERNAL FIELD+INTERNAL OBJECT FUNCTIONS:Ne Fe Si Ti, also known as alpha-quadra-valued-functions.
STATIC OF OBJECTS+DYNAMIC OF FIELDS FUNCTIONS:Se Si Ne Ni, also known as perceiving functions.
STATIC OF FIELDS+DYNAMIC OF OBJECTS FUNCTIONS:Fe Fi Te Ti, also known as judging functions.
BETA-QUADRA-VALUED-OBJECT + DELTA-QUADRA-VALUED-FIELD FUNCTIONS:Se Si Fe Fi, also known as socially-open functions.
BETA-QUADRA-VALUED-FIELD + DELTA-QUADRA-VALUED-OBJECT FUNCTIONS:Ne Ni Te Ti, also known as socially-closed functions.
STATIC OF OBJECTS+DYNAMIC OF FIELDS FUNCTIONS:Se Si Ne Ni, also known as perceiving functions.
EXTERNAL PERCEIVING FUNCTIONS:Se Si
Done. A grouping of 1/4 of the space naturally uses one side of each of two dichotomies...
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
okayyy....
But once again its silly to call them "sensing"
if you wanna label Attributes (statics of objects) and Flows (dynamics of fields) as "set x" then fine.
But "perceiving" is a horrible name for set x
and Se and Si have little to do with eachother.
The end is nigh
.
I grant you this: the Russian Socionics jargon often does not mean in English what it means in Socionics. So "perceiving," "sensing," "external"... they mean Socionics concepts. Then do not refer to perceptions, sensations or the outsides of things. But I prefer to use the commonly accepted words among those who understand them... if you know of a better word for "Sensing" or for "Perceiving" then tell me, and I'd be happy to use it in your presence. But I wish to refer to those categories.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
So far, this is the only intelligible description of these dichotomies that I've seen. Most seem to use very vague language, making it difficult to apply them to real life. Assuming that what you've written here is accurate, thank you. It should better help me understand the elements.
Jason
Se and Si are linked in the same way because the property of being Strong in one always coincides with the property of being Strong in the other. It's the exact same principle except in that Valued is swapped for Strong.The following is pretty obvious shit, but it's probably good to lay it out:
so the only way that
So you could make the case that Se/Ni and Ne/Si are mutually exclusive and Te/Fi and Fe/Ti are mutually exclusive therefore...
[Se/Ni, Ne/Si] are grouped because they cannot both be valued by a quadra and [Te/Fi, Fe/Ti] are grouped for the same reason.
Same goes for Ne and Ni, Ti and Te, Fi and Fe.
There are also groups that combine this property of function strengths in the same way as your quadras do with the property of function values. These groups are known as the Clubs and are used extensively in typing.
Yes, they are the socially open functions.OK, so the conclusion I draw from this is...
I can't reasonably include
Is there a reasonable way to cluster
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
They are also the "involved" functions in the abstract/involved dichotomy. (abstract being Intuitive and Logical functions, involved being sensory and ethical).
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...
That's a pretty good way to describe them.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Ummm... so define this "abstract" and "involved" to me.
Because seems to me like they have basically nothing to do with eachother.
abstracts and involveds include two externals, two dynamics, and two fields. They include two internals, two statics, and two objects.
Abstracts:
External dynamics of objects
External statics of fields
Internal statics of objects
Internal dynamics of fields
Involved:
External statics of objects
External dynamics of fields
Internal dynamics of objects
Internal statics of fields
So why exactly are these grouped, what makes one "abstract" and the other "involved", and why are Se, Si, Fe, Fi socially open?
The end is nigh
Abstracted aka Socially Closed:
Internal Perceiving OR External Judging (N or T)
Involved aka Socially Open:
External Perceiving OR Internal Judging (S or F)
This is a fact observed in practice: NT types are as a rule less socially inclined than SF types or even NF and ST types. There is a clear scale of social activity with NT types at the socially disinclined end and SF types at the socially active side, and STs and NFs down the middle of it. The explanation is that NT types possess two socially closed functions, SF types possess two socially open functions, and ST and NF types possess one of each.So why exactly are these grouped, what makes one "abstract" and the other "involved", and why are Se, Si, Fe, Fi socially open?
The first part only applies if you accept "judging and perceiving" as legit dichotomies.
And I think the second is mostly stereotypical BS.
Not only do you need to define "socially inclined", but if it is what I think you mean (outgoing and socially tactful/concerned), than it doesn't reflect reality at all.
Plenty of Si ISFp's for example are characteristically aloof and abstract. Ne ENTp's are generally outgoing and "people-oriented."
The end is nigh
You're just about the first person ever to deny that they are legit dichotomies. The burden of proof is on you.The first part only applies if you accept "judging and perceiving" as legit dichotomies.
Extrovert/introvert is, of course, another factor. Probably a stronger one than socially open/socially closed.Plenty of Si ISFp's for example are characteristically aloof and abstract. Ne ENTp's are generally outgoing and "people-oriented."
Well then all the more glory to me
Yeah, seeing the physical processes of objects (Te) does not require a judgement on the part of the observer. You just percieve how it happens and then create conceptions afterwords. Same with all the other "judging" elements.
sensation -> perception -> conception -> action
The information elements are different types of passive input filters by which we focus and select incoming sensory information relevant to whatever element is in use.
You perceive with the IE's... and conceptions (judgements) are possible with any of them.
The end is nigh
IMO the "Judging" notation refers to how a comparison between two entities is made. To notice the activity of an object is to notice how it changes from one state to another. So whenever you "notice" an activity, you are already comparing a past state to a present or future one. Hence comparison; judgment.
You seem to be describing the linear sequential motion of objects i.e. dynamics.
If you can "notice" the activity of the external dynamics of objects and the internal dynamics of objects, why can't you "notice" the activity of the external dynamics of fields and the internal dynamics of fields?
Also, why does this "noticing" apply to dynamics of objects and statics of fields, but not to dynamics of fields and statics of objects?
The end is nigh
On the other hand, fields are changes, so the "statics of fields" is the intersection of two fields, whereas the "dynamics of fields" can refer to just one.
That just popped into my head...
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
