Socionical Syntax

[FDG]

@FDG agreed

Do you relate to that?

I don't like the fact that the personal rules are not known. It's not fair.

[mike_INTJ]

I'm curious as to what other people think about this, because, based on my own experiences.... well... I won't say it right now.

I've heard and read in a few places that INTjs can struggle with emotional situations and relationships that get more and more deeply interpersonal, but I was wondering if anyone could elaborate on it or link some articles, etc.

4. Somewhat tender and capricious. His self-sacrifice in defending justice becomes especially mind-boggling, if one knows that he feels irritated by everything that disturbs silence and the measured way of his life. He is very concerned about living healthy. Thusly Rene Descartes "considered health as the principal of mortal goods second to the Truth". In his youth he often tends to a cheerful lifestyle with many friends, games of chance, booze. Later he comes to the conclusion that all those things are something other than what he really needs. He is not very ambitious but he does not tolerate when others get ahead of him in their career, out of the same feeling of justice. He finds himself in an especially hard situation when having to obey a boss whom he does not respect.

http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index-type.html

Relating that to relationships...

the only thing I can say right now is that the idea of tenderness is both enticing, yet somewhat painful, too. Maybe it is just because I have baggage from the past or something, I don't know.

i think mostly it stems down to how to grasp onto the emotion your feeling. an average person (i assume), has a tangable amount of emtion. it's in a bite sized chunk, a stone or a pebble as it were.

mine however is the size of a mountain. something i really can't grasp, can't see the top, can't fit in my pocket, and is very heavy.

and in order to be with a person i have to understand the mountain, and thats a big task.

plus it's hard to develop something new like this. one word out of place and it could close the whole deal. and there are no real lesson books to help out.

[mike_INTJ]

I don't know about you, but my LII friend seems to set himself up for disappointment in relationships. It seems like he expects every relationship to be special and lasting, where most of his peers don't share the sentiment. After all, they are late-teens/early-20's and want to party and stuff. So, when he gets into a relationship he is often disappointed and heart-broken.

Also, he doesn't give people much of a chance. If they don't instantly grab his attention he won't give them the time of day. Once he has formed his opinion of you, it is very hard to change it (even if his opinion is shown to be unjustified).

He never forgets the wrong-doings. No matter how good you might have been to him (as friend or lover), do one thing wrong and he won't speak to you again.

I'm not sure if all LIIs are this extreme, but that's what my friend does, anyway.

that sounds like me, as i have a fantasy half that is simply in full happiness. after a while though you stop trusting everybody. everyone is out to get you in some way. and while that's not true, having a life where people either make fun of you, cast you off as strange, don't hang out with you, don't usually talk to you, make fun of you, pretend to be your friend just to make fun of you, or simply take advantage of you - you become very weary of anyone making contact to you.

plus the fantasy half want's more, so the look they give may be taken as something far to serious, you investigate only to have your heart ripped out. or they totally fail your expectations with the percieved model you made of them - and that can hurt too.

a wrong doing depends on what was wrong. i hold truth as an important thing. i don't want someone to tell me they love me, when they don't love me at all. and i don't want people to be nice to me only because they want something in return. and i don't want people asking me questions, unless they really are interested in the answers.

[XoX]

I don't like the fact that the personal rules are not known.

For some weird reason I'm incapable of memorizing the damn symbols. I always have to check what symbol means what function What is better with these symbols than using Si, Te etc?

Anyways I have no problem forming long relationships. I do have problem forming too close relationships. Do INTjs have problem with both issues? How about other ISTps? Do you think it is weird to want long lasting but not too close relationships/friendships?

[science as magic]

@Xox some people are more visual so something like:




Would make more sense to them conceptually and allow them to expand more on the concept than the letters "ISTp"

Do you relate to that?

I don't like the fact that the personal rules are not known. It's not fair.

They ARE known. people never violate them for example (unless they are evil). You need to learn to pay more attention to them just like the peron needs to learn that not everyone can read those signals. Let me put it in more ENTj terms. It is TO YOUR BENEFIT to understand why types can be so touchy and it is DETRIMENTAL TO YOU if they learn to adapt to you without the reverse being true. Why? If they adapt to you they become more diversified and can act in situations that you cannot situations AND situations whereas you will be stuck in one. It would be like insisting that all foreeigners who come to your country speak your language, it doesn't help you it only makes them better. This is why for example you see periods where surpasses for example Aristotle becoming greater under the tutelage of Plato and later on when the predominant "informational space" (to use one of Transigent's terms) becomes then the process repeats with people becoming better under the tutelage of people. Just and observation though.

[XoX]

@Xox some people are more visual so something like:




Would make more sense to them conceptually and allow them to expand more on the concept than the letters "ISTp"

*sigh* to me that looks like some abstract work of art. I have trouble understanding abstract art too Anyways I'm starting to remember what means so I have hope But I have to go through a conversion process with the other symbols...

SiNi:Fe
NeSe:Ti

is much more "visual" and "instant" to me than the symbolic version. This is why I should just forget about any artistic ambitions I might have

[science as magic]

well what i see is:

w_w_
_w_w

overlayed upon:

_b_b
b_b_

(w = white; b = black)

and all sorts of other correlations then I try to "balance" the equation. for example I see intjs as a b set of polarities with Ti at one end and Ni at the other while simultaneosly being polarized between Ti and Fi and Si but not on the same vector field. the other field with the extraverted occurs with Ne as the center and the two "intersect" at JePi and JiPi and create a configuration but the configuration of intersections can be moved about like a rubik's cube. so in my opinion and intj doesn't have to have Ne as it's "secondary function" but could have Se, Ni, and Si also also the locus of centrality can switch between the J functions and invert with the P functions dominating in particular circumstances depending upon which areas are getting stimulated.

[Apex]

That is totally what my friend does... it's scary how easily he gets to that point

Yes, we do have a nack for that kind of thing. This is where our unique ability to piss people off comes into play.

[Cone]

I am so going INTj bashing tonight.

[UDP]

That is totally what my friend does... it's scary how easily he gets to that point

Yes, we do have a nack for that kind of thing. This is where our unique ability to piss people off comes into play.

Anyone want to see an example of this?

I'm racking up a huge PO'd score on another site. They're all a bunch of pansies, and they keep saying I think I know everything, which is completely absurd, but they just keep going back to that arguement because it's all they've got.

[mike_INTJ]

That is totally what my friend does... it's scary how easily he gets to that point

Yes, we do have a nack for that kind of thing. This is where our unique ability to piss people off comes into play.

Anyone want to see an example of this?

I'm racking up a huge PO'd score on another site. They're all a bunch of pansies, and they keep saying I think I know everything, which is completely absurd, but they just keep going back to that arguement because it's all they've got.

sure let's take a look.

[FDG]

They ARE known. people never violate them for example (unless they are evil). You need to learn to pay more attention to them just like the peron needs to learn that not everyone can read those signals. Let me put it in more ENTj terms. It is TO YOUR BENEFIT to understand why types can be so touchy and it is DETRIMENTAL TO YOU if they learn to adapt to you without the reverse being true. Why? If they adapt to you they become more diversified and can act in situations that you cannot situations AND situations whereas you will be stuck in one. It would be like insisting that all foreeigners who come to your country speak your language, it doesn't help you it only makes them better. This is why for example you see periods where surpasses for example Aristotle becoming greater under the tutelage of Plato and later on when the predominant "informational space" (to use one of Transigent's terms) becomes then the process repeats with people becoming better under the tutelage of people. Just and observation though.

Not that I don't want to know them; I want to know them so that I can follow them - but it is difficult because, as you say, they are probably hinted in ways I do not necessarily understand. I get however that speaking out those rules would be , so it's impossible for them to make them clear without "adapting" to me.

[FDG]

well what i see is:

w_w_
_w_w

overlayed upon:

_b_b
b_b_

(w = white; b = black)

and all sorts of other correlations then I try to "balance" the equation. for example I see intjs as a b set of polarities with Ti at one end and Ni at the other while simultaneosly being polarized between Ti and Fi and Si but not on the same vector field. the other field with the extraverted occurs with Ne as the center and the two "intersect" at JePi and JiPi and create a configuration but the configuration of intersections can be moved about like a rubik's cube. so in my opinion and intj doesn't have to have Ne as it's "secondary function" but could have Se, Ni, and Si also also the locus of centrality can switch between the J functions and invert with the P functions dominating in particular circumstances depending upon which areas are getting stimulated.

Omg I have to print and decipher this

[mimisor]

yeah, me too. Pedro what's JePi JiPi, this I couldn't understand.

JIPPI JIPPI JA YEAH!!! :crazy:

[mike_INTJ]

yeah, me too. Pedro what's JePi JiPi, this I couldn't understand.

JIPPI JIPPI JA YEAH!!! :crazy:

maybe he meant Jedi?

[science as magic]

JePi?

Standard form XxXx:

X_X_ are either J_J_, P_P_, J_P_, or P_J_ where J = T/F and P = N/S

_x_x are either _e_e, _i_i, _e_i_, or _i_e where e is extraversion and i is introversion.

Thinking of types in this way leads to further arangements such as ones that are currently nonsense in socionincs like TfNsEi etc. Also this will let you see how little the functions really explain. I prefer anndelise's method of replacing the letter symbols and their combinations with adjectives but this quickly reaches it's limits too especially since it is limited to a judging context. I think a further elaboration could be done by replacing the symbols with "observations" like smilingeyes did in his version of socionincs but again limited to an Te + Ni (unordered) context mostly. The obvious solution would be a form of mathematics where concepts like

J > P, J<---P, J<-->P, etc etc are like different forms of interaction between the parts analagous to +, *, ^, integration, their inverses etc etc. Then we can use modelling to simulate human activity but and describe it with this language but I think it would be better to combine it with um maybe advanced chemistry + a shitload of sensors so we can break humans down into sequences of polymer chains or something so we can describe them better.

[Rocky]

The words you write are no longer making sense.

[science as magic]

dey r u juz ned 2 noe wat dey mien

[Rocky]

unfortunatly, i think you are the only one who knows what they mean.


was there anything worth explaining in that post? or were you just mentally masturbating?

[science as magic]

there is. i have been saying it for months just in a different format. cone, transigent, and mystic already get it and FDG does too but he needs to ignore parts of what he gets and replace it with other things. it is very simple Rocky, it is just another way of saying "socionics isn't specific enough." i just need the auisjg;orijw gammanites to get to work so I can criticize the fruit of their labor further cause I am less willing to Te it than they are and/or I think it might be already being done faster by others elsewhere

[Rocky]

I got the socionics isn't specific enough part... but I was talking about this...

J > P, J<---P, J<-->P, etc etc are like different forms of interaction between the parts analagous to +, *, ^, integration, their inverses etc etc. Then we can use modelling to simulate human activity but and describe it with this language but I think it would be better to combine it with um maybe advanced chemistry + a shitload of sensors so we can break humans down into sequences of polymer chains or something so we can describe them better.

This other paragraph actually made somewhat sense.

[science as magic]

i'm trying to say that you can view the "functions" as dominating one another, interacting with one another, doing a newtonian action/reaction type thing, um layering upon one another, being coefficients of one another, mirroring, shadowing, reflecting, etc etc. These can be applied individually and to the interactions between all or parts of them or at the limits from a|bF(x) or however else you want.

Right now it seems like socionincs is being interpretted in different fashions with different types using one predominant method. i think all of these can be combined for greater understanding for example the Ps like the dynamical shit while Ji types tend to prefer the greater lesser crap. basically it is just taking this information:

= internal statics of objects
= external statics of objects
= external dynamics of objects
= internal dynamics of objects
= internal dynamics of fields
= external dynamics of fields
= external statics of fields
= internal statics of fields

And elaborating on it a lot further and applying different things to it and such and then working it into actual equations.

[Cone]

On the topic of Socionics and mathematics, what if we define the dichotomies as a proposition and its negation? Like for example, S is p and N is ~p, whatever p may be. That way the functions are by definition mutually exclusive, as they are commonly thought to be.

But then again, are the functions binary or quantitative? If they are quantitative, then this won't work.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Cone]

No, most people still believe in stuff like ambiversion.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[science as magic]

@cone i tried doing that but i don't think it is that simple:

eg. T = -p, p = F

take a component of on function let's say Fi and morality in that scenario would that which is (describe morality) is p, -p is the negation of (desc.) so if part of Fi is _ then -p is Tx (e or i depending on how you view it). the problem is that doesn't jive with reality at all Te/i types are not "anti" morality per se that is more exxp types who seek to defy Ji static states.

also you are contrasting T/F when you could view the "opposite" of T as being P in some situations. Is Ti "anti" Fi/Fe? Classical socionics says more like Pe covers Ji and Je covers Pi and so forth. it is all just associations though i would argue you can see Ti as in opposition to pretty much anything. try it out sometime cone. also i think you are doing the x, not x too much you need ways to represent conjuntions, disjunctions, material conditional statements, quantifiers, etc etc

fuck i hijacked this... i'm splitting it into a new thread called Socionical Syntax

[anndelise]

@cone i tried doing that but i don't think it is that simple:

eg. T = -p, p = F

take a component of on function let's say Fi and morality in that scenario would that which is (describe morality) is p, -p is the negation of (desc.) so if part of Fi is _ then -p is Tx (e or i depending on how you view it). the problem is that doesn't jive with reality at all Te/i types are not "anti" morality per se that is more exxp types who seek to defy Ji static states.

also you are contrasting T/F when you could view the "opposite" of T as being P in some situations. Is Ti "anti" Fi/Fe? Classical socionics says more like Pe covers Ji and Je covers Pi and so forth. it is all just associations though i would argue you can see Ti as in opposition to pretty much anything. try it out sometime cone. also i think you are doing the x, not x too much you need ways to represent conjuntions, disjunctions, material conditional statements, quantifiers, etc etc

fuck i hijacked this... i'm splitting it into a new thread called Socionical Syntax

I don't want to interfere, but if you took out the concept of "morality"...and replaced it with Evaluating/evaluation (give weight to something...determining importance of something...or such)...would what you wrote above make more sense?

I ask this because Fi is commonly described as
* feelings of attraction and repulsion (a subjective evaulation of what is attractive and what is repulsive)
* likes and dislikes (same as above, a subjective evaluation of what is preferred and what is avoided)
* morals (social evaluations of acceptable/not acceptable made into "rules")
* needs (subjective evaluation of importance)

It seems to me that Te/i types might view many subjective evaluations as irrelevant (instead of "anti").

[science as magic]

It seems to me that Te/i types might view many subjective evaluations as irrelevant (instead of "anti").

yeah that is what i was trying to point out that contrapositives do not always apply

[FDG]

@cone i tried doing that but i don't think it is that simple:

eg. T = -p, p = F

take a component of on function let's say Fi and morality in that scenario would that which is (describe morality) is p, -p is the negation of (desc.) so if part of Fi is _ then -p is Tx (e or i depending on how you view it). the problem is that doesn't jive with reality at all Te/i types are not "anti" morality per se that is more exxp types who seek to defy Ji static states.

Here Fi = subjective judgement ethics (I don't think it's right to substantivate it into morality for this purpose)

therefore - Fi = objective perception logic

And here it goes you have the two types who have objective perception as dominant and thinking as creative, which are exatly the -Fi types.

Now take Ti= subjective judgement logic

therefore - Ti = objective perception ethics

so on

J > P, J<---P, J<-->P, etc etc are like different forms of interaction between the parts analagous to +, *, ^, integration, their inverses etc etc. Then we can use modelling to simulate human activity but and describe it with this language but I think it would be better to combine it with um maybe advanced chemistry + a shitload of sensors so we can break humans down into sequences of polymer chains or something so we can describe them better.

This is really appealing

[FDG]

Anyway this describes pairs of look-a-likes for Ps and comparatives for Js so I can't really see any application right now for what I just wrote

[anndelise]

Here Fi = subjective judgement ethics (I don't think it's right to substantivate it into morality for this purpose)

therefore - Fi = objective perception logic

And here it goes you have the two types who have objective perception as dominant and thinking as creative, which are exatly the -Fi types.

Now take Ti= subjective judgement logic

therefore - Ti = objective perception ethics

so on

Why are the terms "Ethics" and "Logics" used in attempts to create a dichotomy when the concepts of the terms are not mutually exclusive of the other?

Given the definition of
Logic as "using premises to come to a conclusion" and
Ethics as "the principle of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group"

"Ethics" is in essence the product of an evaluation, aka judgement
"Logics" shows the steps from premises to conclusion to reach that final judgement.

How is this a dichotomous classification?

[FDG]

Here Fi = subjective judgement ethics (I don't think it's right to substantivate it into morality for this purpose)

therefore - Fi = objective perception logic

And here it goes you have the two types who have objective perception as dominant and thinking as creative, which are exatly the -Fi types.

Now take Ti= subjective judgement logic

therefore - Ti = objective perception ethics

so on

Why are the terms "Ethics" and "Logics" used in attempts to create a dichotomy when the concepts of the terms are not mutually exclusive of the other?

Given the definition of
Logic as "using premises to come to a conclusion" and
Ethics as "the principle of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group"

"Ethics" is in essence the product of an evaluation, aka judgement
"Logics" shows the steps from premises to conclusion to reach that final judgement.

How is this a dichotomous classification?

No

Do not break my definition into smaller terms;

it's "subjective judgement logic", not "subjective"+"judgement"+"logic"

[anndelise]

Here Fi = subjective judgement ethics (I don't think it's right to substantivate it into morality for this purpose)

therefore - Fi = objective perception logic

And here it goes you have the two types who have objective perception as dominant and thinking as creative, which are exatly the -Fi types.

Now take Ti= subjective judgement logic

therefore - Ti = objective perception ethics

so on

Why are the terms "Ethics" and "Logics" used in attempts to create a dichotomy when the concepts of the terms are not mutually exclusive of the other?

Given the definition of
Logic as "using premises to come to a conclusion" and
Ethics as "the principle of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group"

"Ethics" is in essence the product of an evaluation, aka judgement
"Logics" shows the steps from premises to conclusion to reach that final judgement.

How is this a dichotomous classification?

No

Do not break my definition into smaller terms;

it's "subjective judgement logic", not "subjective"+"judgement"+"logic"

I'm referring to the use of the terms "Ethics" and "Logic" in the first place.

I can see subjective judgement...objective judgement... subjective perception...objective perception......

But not when the terms ethics and logic are included. I can't make sense of it.

I'm asking for help in clarifying it for me.

[tcaudilllg]

That is totally what my friend does... it's scary how easily he gets to that point

Yes, we do have a nack for that kind of thing. This is where our unique ability to piss people off comes into play.

Anyone want to see an example of this?

I'm racking up a huge PO'd score on another site. They're all a bunch of pansies, and they keep saying I think I know everything, which is completely absurd, but they just keep going back to that arguement because it's all they've got.

See also: http://www.rpgdx.net/ . Guess which name I'm using there.

[Creepy-pokeball]

INT's are kitty cats. Sooo overblwn imo

[science as magic]

No

Do not break my definition into smaller terms;

it's "subjective judgement logic", not "subjective"+"judgement"+"logic"

The whole point is to not entjize the system in other words what is viewed as a unit should be able to be adjusted continuously and that is not possible with that system. Plus it is closed and does not allow for the possibility of unforeseen relations between it's parts. Once again we DO NOT want words but rather the closest thing we can get to thought-actions in other words the base unit should be something that can used in a system of pure abstract logic, something that could be experimented on physically, and something which when it interacts is acted upon simultaneously.

Also once again I am critical of connecting "subjectivity" to introversion. Think of scenarios in which intuitives are described as "subjective" by others for example or as is often the case scenarios in which ethical types are described as such then adopt the stance of the subjective person in that situation and take what they are viewing as objective. Afterwards go back into yourself while keeping their views and continue behaving as you normally would. Judge your typical actions by the stance of the subjective person and view your actions as they would and respond to them as they would for the reasons that they would and you will begin to see yourself as not conforming to what is actual or objective because the context of importance has shifted.

Here is an excercise to try. Take an image of someone you know irl and adjust the look of it in many different ways with some kind of photoshop program. For example make the image sharper, more blurry, greyscale, adjust the color effects, pixelize it, twirl it about an axis, etc etc. Then respond to that image as if you had viewed it for the first time. I find it helpful to reconvert the image it it's original format so that the sudden contrast in shapes, colors, etc is noticeable immediately. Then go outside and start doing the same thing with actual people. For example if there is a woman that you are normally attracted to "blur" her until her features are indistinguishable and notice how you react to her as if she was just another person rather than feeling an attraction towards her.

Do this with concepts also!!! Go to a lecture or something on a topic that interests you and apply these frames of reference to whatever you area hearing and adjust them on a scale from - to + infin. Use several at once, especially if they contradict one another.

This seems to be a good analogy for the difference between ExxJ and IxxJ thought for example. Try to think of situations in which one is more useful than the other and then flip it. You can graph their usefulness and then where (if anywhere) both would be required in the same amount (or close enough to the same amount to be negligible). After that do the same thing with other "functions" or behaviors, thoughts, words, tendencies, etc of the other types. Suround youself with many members of one particular type and actively try to adopt their presuppositions until you become one of them.

Anyway this describes pairs of look-a-likes for Ps and comparatives for Js

Wait how did you derive that? I see different relations.

[BlendieOfIndie]

For some weird reason I'm incapable of memorizing the damn symbols. I always have to check what symbol means what function What is better with these symbols than using Si, Te etc?

I full heartedly agree. In fact, I'm going to say it again. I full heartedly agree. Symbols tell you nothing about what you are talking about. Si, Se, Ti, Te, etc. are var more descriptive than . Who came up with this nonsense?

On another note...

Anyways I have no problem forming long relationships. I do have problem forming too close relationships. Do INTjs have problem with both issues? How about other ISTps? Do you think it is weird to want long lasting but not too close relationships/friendships?

I don't think I have a problem forming long relationships, but then again my longest relationship is 9 months (although I know people with less). Close relationships... that's harder to put a finger on. It seems after a certain period of time, I start to lose interest in my partner.

What exactly does "close" mean anyways.

I'm dating an ISTp right now (as you might already know from my post in Delta). Maybe I'll be able to tell you how it compares to my other relationships as far as "closeness" goes. It'll have to be a month or 2 from now. We're still in the early stages of the wohle thing.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I agree that the symbols are dumb. I remember reading the reason for them but I dont recall why. Maybe they wanted universal appeal. I dunno.

[FDG]

Anyway this describes pairs of look-a-likes for Ps and comparatives for Js

Wait how did you derive that? I see different relations.

First of all - thanks for the first part of your post, I'll try the exercise.

Replying to your question, example - even if my system doesn't lead anywhere as both of us agreed upon -

"subjective judgement logic" - ISTj INTj(comparative)

"subjective judgment ethics" - ISFj INFj(comparative)

"objective perception logic" - ESTp ENTp (lookalike)

"objective perception ethics" - ESFp ENFp (lookalike)


so on