I didn't mean to judge them so harshly as you people are nowOriginally Posted by Jadae
Just pointing out that personally I have some problems interpreting them...it seems I'm not the only one. Anyways I'm not trying to make those people who like them stop using them
That's kind of the point, Woodie. Why use something that requires extra processing when it truely doesnt even need to exist?
Because you're way too practical, Jadae, that's why. :wink:
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
True!
pedro, why don't you agree with the subjective-introversion thing? i find it helpful.
as for the symbols... i find that i "type" people with symbols now... i see the funcitons in people as the symbols. so i don't think "entj" anymore, but i'd see
. it's just the visualization thing i like... even if i don't always use it while writing.
Ah... I was thinking objective perception logics as extp
Because introverts have varying levels of subjectivity, as do extraverts, let alone the two groups combined. I think it would be hard to make the case that an istj is less objective than an esfp for example.
But wouldn't you consider Ti and Fi subjective reasonsing, and Se objective perception? Ti and Fi have to do with more of your internal perspective.
I am not sure the that objectivity is possible. In my mindthat happens to be general knowledge in some ways. In other words objectivity should not be measured in relation to ability of the information to be transferred but in the accuracy of the information.
No. Our senses can mislead us, be faullty, or lack the capacity to distinguish what is actually happening. For example we are hurtling through space at high speeds and do not sense it. What if you met an esxp who was a blind deaf/mute for example? Would you trust their perceptions more than your own?
edit
That is certainly correct as far asI am not sure the that objectivity is possible. In my mind
Perhaps cohesive would be a better word? Modelling seems to be an 'objective' use of
That is certainly correct as far as
I like to think of it like this:
+
That's just one example, but I think it gets the point across. Does it make sense to you?
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...
Yes, cohesive is a better word, and so is modelling.Perhaps cohesive would be a better word? Modelling seems to be an 'objective' use of
However - and I'll exaggerate to make the point - it would be difficult to speak of "objectivity" for
- ISTjs -experience of concrete data. Subjectivity: further
- INTjs -
So sure, such models may be very internally cohesive, but the choice of the data used to create the models seems to be totally subjective.
So in terms of "objectivity" - just to get the terms right -
Yes, that is more or less what I meant just above.
It does make sense.I like to think of it like this:
That's just one example, but I think it gets the point across. Does it make sense to you?
I actually disagree with this and I have further elaborations to make on Te vs. Ti but I will wait until later to post them as I am sleepy. For now I will just say that
I'll give you my thoughts on Te vs Ti, hope to clarify this once and for allYes, cohesive is a better word, and so is modelling.
However - and I'll exaggerate to make the point - it would be difficult to speak of "objectivity" for
- ISTjs -
- INTjs -
So sure, such models may be very internally cohesive, but the choice of the data used to create the models seems to be totally subjective.
So in terms of "objectivity" - just to get the terms right -
I think it's not such a good idea to divide Te and Ti and say one is objective and the other subjective. Because basically both Te and Ti are forms of Thinking (the socionics function T - objective judgement), this means its task is to capture the objective, concrete world exactly the way it is
My point is that Te and Ti is the same thing (T), only that it has a different approach to it.
Thus the focus of
Recently, I've realized Ti fits wonderfully and amazingly with the concept of "ideal type" developed originally by Max Weber.
I'll post here only a bit of what I've found
and some detailed explanation of how it actually works this model, this mind constructideal type
in the social sciences, mental construct derived from observable reality although not conforming to it in detail because of deliberate simplification and exaggeration. It is not ideal in the sense that it is excellent, nor is it an average; it is, rather, a logical ideal used to order reality by selecting and accentuating certain elements.
The concept of the ideal type was developed by the early-20th-century German sociologist Max Weber, who used it in his historical studies. Some writers confine the use of ideal types to general, suprahistorical phenomena (e.g., bureaucracy) that recur in different times and places, although Weber also used them for historically unique occurrences (e.g., his famous Protestant ethic).
Problems in using the ideal type include its tendency to focus attention on extreme, or polar, phenomena, while overlooking the connections between them, and the difficulty of showing how the types and their elements fit into a conception of a total social system.
"Weber (1903-1917) described the construction of an ideal type in the following manner:
'An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present, and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified thought-construct. (p. 90)'
"We focus on reality from the point of view that is dictated by our values. From this point of view, we notice certain features of reality and ignore those features that would become visible only from other points of view. We thus select only certain features of reality relevant to the point of view we have adopted; we then postulate connections among these selected features. We thus go beyond the data in order to conceive of relationships that underlie them.
"Ideal types, moreover, are idealized descriptions of the concrete features of things that are given from this particular point of view. The concrete features of things frequently prove to be difficult to distinguish from one another; their identities may remain fuzzy, fluid, indefinite, and vague. With ideal types, we draw precise and clear conceptual boundaries around these features of things. We conceptually set aside the real indistinctness and ambiguity, and we imagine a 'pure' case in which the relevant features are distinct and unambiguous. Furthermore, in actual cases the features may vary so widely that each individual seems unique and incomparable to others. The ideal type, however, specifies manifold features, all of which are not found in each actual case. The features delineated by the ideal type are, as Weber expressed it, 'more of less present' and 'occasionally absent' in individual cases.
"The result is a general category that in all likelihood does not exactly depict any actually existing instance of it. Rather, the category describes a general class that has been deliberately 'perfected' and 'purified' for intellectual purposes. The scientific mind requires clear, distinct, and precisely defined concepts in order to comprehend reality. And the perfection and purity of the ideal type make it a clear, distinct and intelligible concept. The realities themselves are never so clear, distinct, and intelligible; that is why they would remain forever unintelligible if exact concepts were not constructed and applied to them."
"Ideal types, as a system of interconnected concepts, can then serve as a kind of 'theory' for the study of any particular phenomenon. We call this 'a kind of "theory"' because it is not a theory in the usual sense of providing a conceptual representation of reality that will be either true or false. Ideal types, as we have said, are not true or false; they are only helpful or unhelpful in the further investigation of reality. Yet in further investigation of reality, it would seem to be more helpful to employ a fully defined system of interrelated concepts than to use merely one or two sparsely defined notions" (424-25).
I'll argue that the collected data is objective, what might give you the impression that it isn't is the personal approach to it, where the subject - I, my person - is involved and seeks to interpret the reality rather than expressing it the way it is. In few words, like somebody said, Ti is nothing but a personalized version of Te
EDIT: if by "subjective" you mean selective, then I agree, Ti is selective with the data collected, but not with the final target to be biased towards an opinion or a fixed idea or something, but because otherwise it couldn't be analysed so much amount of data, so it needs to cut it down in order to be examined carefully
Bravo Pedro, nicely put!I am not sure the that objectivity is possible. In my mind
and true. I think both Ti and Te try to be accurate in the end, it's just a different proccessing style
EDIT: and I have to admit, the Ti processing style is much much slower, precisely because it needs to understand before arriving at any conclusion whatsoever.
I was wondering just how much ISTJs are "practical", and how much they trust "facts" when their dominant funciton is Ti? They seem to enjoy facts and such, but that goes away from the Ti thing.
How about Krauss?
Yeah... do you usually collect "facts" and things?
You didn't ask me but I will answer. My sister-in-law is ESTp and she collects enormous amounts of facts. Those facts she has observed herself with her own senses she trusts completely over anybody else's observations. Towards facts that she reads from a book or hears from someone else she is rather critical and accepts them only after analysis and comparison to her own observations.
For example if I try to convince her (using socionics) that our relationship should be this and that kind but her own observations disagree with that she would dismiss what socionics says immediately and completely.
I didn't mean just mental models by the way but modeling the technique including such things as solar modelling, correlations between neurological activity and behavior/perception, and GIS. Cryptanalysis and some aspects of # theory seem to also be
If the data set includes imprecision then that carries over to the interrelations noted. This is not the fault of the method by which they are derived but of lack of access to correct data from which to make accurate analysis. I am reminded of the perpetual cry of the mentat for more data who notes that certain information is still missing and alternative outcomes are possible with the data set.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote