Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 51

Thread: Model A vs non-Model A discussion (split from the Frank Lloyd Wright thread)

  1. #1
    Creepy-female

    Default Model A vs. non-Model A discussion (split from the Frank Lloyd Wright thread)

    .
    Last edited by female; 05-12-2012 at 08:52 PM.

  2. #2
    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 Model A vs. non-Model A discussion (split from Frank Lloyd Wright thread)

    I would have thought that was the top to bottom approach - going from the global to the specific, while would be from the bottom up because it collects data and makes it into one module.

  3. #3
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    wrong.

    Si is bottom up.

    Ti is top down.

    From what i can indirectly perceive of it, Te is likely N/A or bottom up.

    Also the use of the elements is determined by what function they occupy, possibly changing the orientation.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  4. #4
    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 ArchonAlarion View Post
    wrong.

    Si is bottom up.

    Ti is top down.

    From what i can indirectly perceive of it, Te is likely N/A or bottom up.

    Also the use of the elements is determined by what function they occupy, possibly changing the orientation.
    But is akin to inductive reasoning, and is akin to deductive reasoning...

  5. #5
    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

    The way I see (perhaps paired with ) is like the price of a company's share on the stock exchange at one moment in time (this would be one snapshot, to use that analogy). But with over a period of time, is like many snapshots attached to each other in a linear fashion by a piece of string (i.e. rather than a structure of snapshots).

    As I understand, does not go into specifics at any single (static) moment in time - it records the company's share price, but with it's paired Ego block function ( in particular), it follows the general trend of how the company is doing.

  6. #6
    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 dolphin View Post
    Te isn't about snapshots, but more like a segment of a camcorder. It's dynamic, not static, a process, not a structure. It's too information heavy over it's specific, localized arena (concentrated) to be a string of snapshots. That's the nature of a dynamic object.
    Yes, good point. Would you say that 's information is more spread over time than 's (when paired with the other Ego block function)?

  7. #7
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Clarification: I was not disagreeing with Dolphin. I was disagreeing with SubT, but the dichotomy is not relevent enough for me to make a strong point on it.

    Anyways, good discussion.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  8. #8
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  9. #9
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    People "accept" information from all sources, it's how they relate to that information, and what they regard as important from it that is different. IOW, looking at the same thing, one person says, "Ah, this is highly important!" the other, "Why waste time with that? Other things are far more important!" A person in a Te devaluing quadra can understand and even appreciate Te, but doesn't find it useful/beneficial to focus on it continually, or in an integrated way. You may filter out information, but you're not blind to it.
    Agree. That's why they're called quadra "values." It's that we have to filter information coming in... We "weed out" that of lesser importance, especially if we can't see it at the same time we're also seeing something that in our make-up is of paramount importance. It's not that this is what one "chooses" to do necessarily, but how one's "ego" is set up. If choice were to come into it, one would have to transcend their ego.

    Te is in the most basic form: concrete processes. This is literally what is happening, the actual events occurring.
    yes.

    ---

    I'm confused about subjective and objective. This is why I am replying to begin with, because everything was stated so clearly it made me easy to address it with my confusions. Essentially I did see "field" as "subjective" and "object" and "objective." Now, I'm thinking "external" is objective while "internal" is subjective... and all of this simply means (to me) that it depends how we're defining "objective" and "subjective," which I find to be a confusing affair.

    Fields are not what is seen through the viewer, that's incorrect. Fields are relationships. They are how things connect.
    But isn't that "subjective," as how they connect is really a matter of interpretation? Like with Fi, why do you like what you like? Why do you like who you like? Isn't it completely different from what someone else likes/doesn't like or thinks is bad/good? That's why it's "personal sentiments". And with Ti, why do we arrange and structure external information the way we do? Isn't it different from how someone else is structuring it? Isn't that what Ti egos sometimes do, "no, that's not the correct structure, this [i.e. mine] is!" ? Or alternatively, "given this context, these priorities, wouldn't this system of organizing [external info] work better?"

    Te hasn't actually changed from one quadra to another, it's the place it has in a person's informational matrix that has changed. It then relates differently with the other elements in that person's mind.
    Agree.

    You have external right, it is apparent, explicit, and concrete. This is something observable, measurable, real, tangible. It's where the difference between Si and Ni, and between Ti and Fi come in for instance.
    That's how I see external.


    Fi: the feel for connections between people/things, value judgments, feel of closeness/distance
    Ti: the definitive, categorical connections between people/things, laws, structure

    Fe: the underlying process, what's going on "beneath the surface"
    Te: the objective observable process, what's happening
    I think these are rather good.

    The objective/subjective dichotomy is NOT the object/field dichotomy, it's the external/internal one.
    There is a definition on socionics.us of "fields" as "viewed through the subject". This makes them "subjective". The object otoh is something that all subjects can see and agree it is there ("objective"). The field though, is personal to the subject, or that's how I had been looking at it.

    So Fe is objective in the sense that it is observing certain "motions" of objects. "Using" Fe most can agree that "that object over there is feeling upset inside." Fe is still focused on objects, but it's following their internal movements. It's internal, but still objective.

    Fe does come off as less "objective" (by the standard definition of 'objective') than Te in the sense that there is more of a consensus among observers on Te happenings ("the facts and nothing but the facts"). We can unanimously agree that "that book fell off that shelf". Now the book is on the floor, it was on the shelf before, people saw it fall... it was recorded on tape... there is no room to dispute the happening or process of the book falling off the shelf. An Fe happening comes off as less "objective" because we can't find a way to *prove* necessarily that "Jack became upset inside because someone mentioned his dead mother and this caused a cataclysm of emotional turbulence inside building dangerously until he lost all control of his feelings" as an explanation for why Jack is now running around screaming and knocking books off of shelves, even if we can all agree that "Jack is feeling upset." But they're still both watching the movement of objects (they're still both objective); it's just one is following external motion while the other is following internal motion (of the same objects). This is why to catch Fe information one has to block Te information.

    Ti is subjective though... or I had thought this way before... Although two Ti systems (or chain link fences since it fits here) can be exposed externally so we can play with one another's logic, the field itself is personal to the subject. Sometimes I think of it in terms of classification... There are a myriad ways to classify the same set of things; there is no "objective" way to classify them, so how ever one has done so is "subjective". The subject/person has their own system they've created and are seeing (it's personal to them). Ti is personal logic; Fi is personal ethics. The difference is that while it's not that difficult to find an external way to communicate between Ti systems (the way "links" form has an external basis, and we can agree on "valid" and "invalid" links), it's actually amazingly difficult trying to communicate between Fi systems. Fi is not only subjective, but also internal. If you try to bring it "out" into the external realm and create rules, you end up making Ti rules, you end up making an external system (Ti) which is the very thing Fi does not "want." This is why Fi can be frustrating to a Ti ego I think... because it can't be externally systemetized or classified. It evades attempts to do this and remains "inconsistent" from a Ti perspective.

    The difference between Fe and Te then is whether something is measureable and tangible or not.
    I guess the problem is (in my mind, that I'm creating) that this is the difference between "objective" and "subjective" in standard definitions. I'm starting to have problems with the word "personal" as well.

    I am very aware of the underlying process, what's going on 'beneath the surface' of an individual or group, and the 'vibes' or
    atmosphere of a group. The political atmosphere, or general sentiment is easy for me to pick up.

    I most notice the concrete processes, as in what's happening and events, the how, what and where something is happening.
    I like these.

    Now, it's easy to see where "what works" as in what is functional comes from in regards to Te. If you put the elements of Te and Ni together you get in simple terms something like "practical purpose" or "a tangible direction/vision". Why do you think the LIEs nicknames are Entrepreneur, Enterpriser, and Pioneer? It's because that's precisely how Te and Ni work together in an LIE. Things switch due to negativism and Ni primary etc. in the ILI to get "The Critic".
    I think this explains it really well.

  10. #10
    ESTj Tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    562
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Pfffffffffffff Jesus & Rabbit day

    I haven't even read this thread, but I might if you use fewer words

    Dolphin is usually right about shit, though.
    Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson

  11. #11
    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

    Erm, a typically healthy person utilises all eight functions.

  12. #12
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're laying it out very concisely Dolphin, thank you. Sometimes its hard for me to expound like you do, so I appreciate the time you've gone through to explain this.

    And SubT, you'll need to back up that statement for it to have any validity.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  13. #13
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol thats a real swell way to end the discussion glam


    and no Carla, Im saying that I can rarely stomach writing big blocks of text and would rather give sharp nuggets of descriptions than really lay out over and over again my opinions. Its tiring to do here because you have to repeat yourself so much, so Im complimenting Dolphin on her effort.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  14. #14
    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 ArchonAlarion View Post
    And SubT, you'll need to back up that statement for it to have any validity.
    What I said is at the very basis of Model A Socionics, and has been discussed many times before. Your interpretation of Socionics shouldn't be discussed in this section of the forum, unless it is relevant in someway to Model A Socionics or unless it is as an aside to the main discussion.

  15. #15
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    once again, good way to stifle the opposition.

    Its really not a crazy idea and basically you're just trying to cut off the portion of the forum that doesn't kiss ass to what you or others think.

    Good try though.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  16. #16
    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 ArchonAlarion View Post
    once again, good way to stifle the opposition.

    Its really not a crazy idea and basically you're just trying to cut off the portion of the forum that doesn't kiss ass to what you or others think.

    Good try though.
    And what's your point? You can discuss other personality theories elsewhere.

  17. #17
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphin View Post
    Functions do not exist as natural processes. They are not phenomenons in nature. Rather, they exist in the mind. Reality as a whole, or pure information, cannot be broken down into 8 different functions. Rather, we use functions to break information down. See the difference?
    The theory is that there are 8 functions (e.g. leading, creative, suggestive, etc.) that make up the psyche and that these functions interact in certain ways to process information. These functions are screening for certain things in reality quite heavily, while ignoring, avoiding, or being quite picky about certain other things in reality. The things the interwoven make-up of the functions (i.e. information metabolism) are filtering are defined as "IM elements". For instance, a leading person's information metabolism is screening for a lot of , finding it can see it, move it, and interact with it. The theory notes that people seem to be screening for 8 kinds of information out of reality (when looking at all the people and seeing these patterns). So reality is said to be made up of these 8 IM aspects. It's possible reality really isn't, and even if it is this seems to be a rather arbitrary division, or perhaps it's more of a convenient division to reflect what humans seem to "see." But for the sake of how the psyche is breaking down reality, it might as well be made of 8 aspects because that's apparently (if this model of the psyche is "true") what the psyche does with it. I think of aspects as... if you're seeing a shadow on the wall, then there is something there blocking the light and creating the shadow. We see the shadow (the IM element)... the IM aspect is a more vague term that is trying to spot the object creating the shadow and what that object actually is or might be. We can't see reality, we only see what we've filtered out of it, so "IM aspect" is almost a sort of "dummy variable" to represent whatever it is in reality that we are connecting to when we screen a certain brand of information.

    The way the 8 aspects are defined though seems to be in a rather all-encompassing way such that if you take any one of them away, reality is clearly missing something vital. It would be like dividing reality into a matrix and then suddenly removing a piece of it. Reality has been arbitrarily defined as consisting of these 8 "pieces"... Not necessarily because that's how reality is but because we have to define it somehow so we can discuss it. So if you change the pieces, then you're defining it differently (not necessarily more or less "correctly") and what you say will become somewhat incompatible with someone defining it differently. I personally see these sort of "definitions" as incredibly arbitrary, as simply a structure to use to communicate with. As long as I'm investigating it, the structure is handy to have to create a way to arrange it. I am just trying to investigate Model A, not create my own way of defining reality. If there is something about IM that is actually observable either inside myself, or through interactions with people, or in archetypes, or patterns, or anything... that's what I'm looking for. How it's defined, what structure it's given, etc. I don't really care about that yet. I just want to look at it, not rearrange it. That's why I find these debates frustrating. It's like trying to get somewhere, but no one can because they keep having minor disputes about who is going to drive in which car or something, and we can never leave but stay squabbling in the parking lot.

    Functions cannot attempt to categorize what information is accepted, only the way it is accepted, seen, or structured. Theoretical descriptions of functions describe how the lense of perception exists and what the nature of it is. The way perception exists is fundamentally different. Functions do not describe the fact that people are more or less equipped to deal with different kinds of information - but rather how they see the same information and structure or process it so differently it may look like it came from a completely different source.
    I don't see it as being "more or less equipped." For instance in Starfall's example (I thought it was a good example) it's not that she was "inequipped" to deal with the Te information, but that she wasn't looking at it. In order to look at the information we're interested in (on a deep down psychic level) we can't look at "opposing" information at the same time. It's not about being equipped. The reason it looks that way is because people are pre-disposed to look at certain kinds of information and value certain kinds of information more than other kinds. On some level that goes deeper than will or the upper layers of consciousness; the psyche desires some kinds of information and doesn't desire others... It sees what it sees because that's what it "wants" to see. For whatever reason, the psyche can't see Fe and Te at the same time (for example)... I don't know if it's impossible to see them both at the same time... if we could transcend our "ego" then who knows. But, basically, as far as the theory is concerned it's not possible to see them both clearly at the same time; if you want to see one you must ignore the other. And if everything about seeing one of them frees you and fills your life with meaning, then of course you'll pursue things that are rich in the exchange of that kind of information.

    LIEs do indeed supervise you because they cover both your strongest and your weakest function. But just because you don't directly experience something as a perception doesn't mean you can't feel vaguely aware of it's presence, or see its presence in others. It just means you will never employ that means of perception. Why should you, when Fe does the job?
    I'm not sure it's about utility or doing the job. Fe can't do what Te can do. Fe can't provide the information that Te can. They do different jobs.

    You have a deficiency in a certain way of organizing your perception that someone else is strong in, yes. This makes you least functional when presented with a LIE because you both have perceptually honed Ni, and yet they also command your weakest point cognitively. But if you've ever noticed with supervisors, glam? It's not the supervisee sitting there and passively taking in whatever the supervisor might happen to say. The supervisee is more often than not resentful and combative. You don't process Te, that's your problem. And why you're supervised by LIEs in spite of your shared Ni.
    It's about values. Screening for Ni+Fe means not looking at Si and especially Te so much. The LIE, who is screening for Te+Ni says "oh god, not everything is about Ni what is wrong with you, look, Ni is imporant, *but* everything is actually about Te. If you can't see that, then I'll just look over your shoulder all the time and redirect your attention to the more important Te matters." It's a minor difference (incapable of processing Te at all vs. not seeing Te because of looking at Fe/Ni) but it seems to be the difference between saying that everyone processes 4 kinds of info vs. everyone processes 8 kinds.

    The implications if everyone only processes information from half of reality is that we really can't communicate. So your conflictor, for instance, becomes essentially an alien from another universe. I'm not sure we could really even have developed a shared verbal and written language were that the case.
    Last edited by inumbra; 04-15-2009 at 10:36 PM.

  18. #18
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    but we are not saying that "reality" is divided up into 8 aspects.

    We are saying that the human psyche as pertains to passive input filtration (perception) values 4 of 8 different elements and is opposed to the other 4. And yeah conflictors are pretty alien and language is a main point of conflict. We are processing all that we sense from reality, but people perceive things in different ways, so I dont think its that ridiculous to say we use four of the eight. You can function off 4.


    Its a fish in water thing. How do you know that what you call "red" is what everyone else does? You can't really (just an example, dont be annoying). So how do you know you're perceiving Te? If you can differentiate in your perception a preferred way of perceiving (1) and a non preferred way (2) than it follows that it is possible for you to perceive in the non preferred way because you have experienced not enjoying it.

    Meaning that if you see in A way and can see also in B way, then its a preference. But we are saying that this split is irrelevent because you are still perceiving overall in A way. You're just splitting up A into A1 and A2 basically. And then you might go around claiming to have A (A1) but also having "B" (A1), when really you have never ever seen what B is really like, nor could you ever fathom it as an A person. B is alien to you and while you may think you have it, its really just you striving to understand B (because you're a socionist and interested in the elements ) and to try and perceive it, you use A, which is all you've ever known, thinking that you're experiencing what others are when you are not.

    I tried.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  19. #19
    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

    ArchonAlarion, you should discuss this in Other Personality Typologies.

  20. #20
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    So, as a logical type, Archon, are you saying that you can't utilize a Te kind of information handling to compliment your Ti? Like if you're writing a technical essay or something?
    Carla I'm genuinely confused over your question.

    As a Ti type I do not use Te. Its averse to my entire mindset, same with Fi. I can fake it easier maybe, or maybe even indirectly handle it for brief periods.

    But technical essays? Idk. Depends on the topic I guess. And seeing as I just wrote a ten page chapter for a book, I dont necessarily have a problem with writing, but I dont like long forum posts in a debate. Then people go and quote your entire thing and split it up into a million pieces and you end up spending your free time crouched over the monitor waiting for a reply, wasting your life away on a relatively meaningless activity.

    But in a more chill environment or when making a theory or description its no biggie.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  21. #21
    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 ArchonAlarion View Post
    As a Ti type I do not use Te. Its averse to my entire mindset, same with Fi. I can fake it easier maybe, or maybe even indirectly handle it for brief periods.
    This understanding is contrary to Model A...if you feel this so strongly, it would be good to discuss this elsewhere.

    Perhaps you will bring down the edifice of Model A...just don't do it here.

  22. #22
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    This understanding is contrary to Model A...if you feel this so strongly, it would be good to discuss this elsewhere.

    Perhaps you will bring down the edifice of Model A...just don't do it here.
    That'd be pretty awesome/sweet.

    I'd feel like a god, go into my back yard to light some sparklers, and then go on a power walk.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  23. #23
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  24. #24
    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 dolphin View Post
    Socionics as a cognitive theory is not a separate theory. It is a byproduct of examing the premises, looking at reality, and modifying the hypothesis to better fit the data. It eliminates a host of confounding variables. It increases the measurability of what we are studying. It attempts to get to the source.
    The notion that each individual uses four information elements and not all eight is contrary to Model A, and hence should be discussed elsewhere.

  25. #25
    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 dolphin View Post
    Discussion isn't generated in an echo chamber. As long as people here who disagree are willing to clarify their views to an extent, censorship continues to be a useless exercise designed to placate the vanity of those in power.
    This is a personality discussion forum, not North Korea.

  26. #26
    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 dolphin View Post
    An impending censorship accomplishes nothing except to dispose of the myriad of viewpoints present here which separates this forum from others.
    But why talk about Socionics at all? We could talk about Hermeticism instead, or in addition to, if you really wanted. The main section of the forum is dedicated to Model A Socionics, and alternatives to this Model can be discussed in depth in this subforum.

  27. #27
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting mental masturbation in this thread, but what are y'all really saying? =/

    Thinking reflects behavior, behavior reflects thinking. That's why the stereotypes and behaviors of people and the functions exist. What can be objectively observable and what is the truth underneath. (an example of this is when I tried to clear up what looks as IEIs "daydreaming" as simple "imagination" and "interlapping inner worlds")

    If functions were purely cognitive thought processes (like say, for example- asking 10,000 people what 2+2 is - which is a simple, pure cognitive thought process everybody can answer regardless of their behavior. ie two VERY different people would always get the answer right, (4)), then you'd see all the IEIs behaving in distinct different ways from each other. And I just don't see that happening. We make conclusions and insights based on how people think because our *behaviors* can be objectively observed. The leaps/connections we make between thoughts and actions aren't always accurate. But it's really as good as we got- since mind reading is impossible. People's thoughts *can't* be studied like behaviors can, which is why they're so much scarier to us; why there is a harsher penalty on premeditated crime as opposed to heat of the moment crime.

    That's why people are typed based on their 'at home' personality, where their guards are let down and they are more themselves. It also explains why you should proceed with caution before you try to type somebody without knowing their 'at home' personality, which you don't unless you are a psychologist, which pretty much requires your clients to trust you enough to show you their 'at home' personality in order to be helped. Which is why I personally advocate that we should NOT be typing celebrities or famous people, unless you know something about their private life somehow (and it has to be honest, not something the magazines embellished to make the character they play more popular.) It's really safer to just ignore typing celebrities, and concentrate on people you know closely irl.

  28. #28
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BnD I agree with you.

    However, we have to type celebrities. If I say, "this is Bob, I know Bob and he is ISTp" thats not going to do much for people who dont know Bob and its going to be difficult to observe him. Whereas celebrities are available to everyone. Thats why VI and speech analysis become important. You do that, and read up on what the people say, watch interviews etc. Humans are built in with "intuition". The ability to subconsciously glean information. That is like 90% of our interactions: intuited communication. So VI, quotes, speech pattern, and movement should be enough for celebrites.

    See we all use socionics. But only socionists have names for everything. Everyone else just relies on intuition and don't know what they're doing (although one could argue that not knowing saves them alot of trouble lol).

    So "at home" is definitely the best and most fun tbh. But for the science and advancement of it we gotta do celebs.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  29. #29
    07490's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    there
    Posts
    3,047
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am going to be an inspector and read this whole thread and see if this is a revolution in Socionics, we might need Expat's opinion here as well, this looks interesting.
    (D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    1)
    A girl who I want to date, asks me: well first tell me how tall you are?
    My reply: well I will answer that, if you first tell me how much you weigh!

    2)
    A girl I was dating said she was oh so great at sex etc, but she didn't do blowjobs.
    My reply: Oh I'm really romantic etc, I just will never take you out to dinner.

  30. #30
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From the Model T article: Dynamic is not directly connected with change. Fields is connected with change, and Perceiving is connected with things; therefore Dynamic (Introtim Perceiving, Extrotim Judging) is connected with changing things and specific judgments. To expand this to Static, the word "changing" should be changed to "fluid"; then we can say that Static means fluid judgments about specific things.

    What the article actually said



    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

  31. #31
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 07490 View Post
    I am going to be an inspector and read this whole thread and see if this is a revolution in Socionics, we might need Expat's opinion here as well, this looks interesting.
    Thanks.

    If you're interested in my views on socionics, they are scattered in several places, mainly:

    - Brilliand has collected several links in his user page in the wiki:

    User:Brilliand - Wikisocion

    I am still happy with the text on the Te-Fi and Fe-Ti divide; less so with the Ne-Si and Ni-Se divide. I still like the "Pathetic Hidden Agenda" thing. I don't like those functional descriptions much anymore, I would not write them like that today.

    - My own ever-changing, incomplete and partly obsolete list of famous people's types is here:

    User:Expat/Famous People - Wikisocion

    - I still like - mostly - this not-quite-finished article I wrote about a hypothesis that Rick and I discussed when we met in Germany:

    Cultural and institutional quadras - Wikisocion

    I haven't written in the main pages of the wiki in a while but overall I probably still agree with most of them. I like, overall, the descriptions by Stratievskaya, Filatova, and socioscope, all in the wiki.

    I tend to agree with Rick on the general approach to socionics and disagree on specific typings on occasion. I like his blog very much.

    As for this thread, no, I don't think that anything here represents a "revolution in socionics", but I suggest you decide what makes the most sense to you.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  32. #32
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    And please quit with the mental masturbation digs, it's annoying. As if you don't get off to the sound of your own voice saying "gay" over and over again.
    No. I *really* don't lol. Gayness isn't the same as narcissism, I like other men, not 'the sound of my own voice.' =/ And it *is* mental masturbation because it just sounds fancy and like it's true, but you really don't have any facts to back up what you're saying. It's just a flowery fragrance with no substance. It's like, to me, you are just spraying perfume on shit. I'm sorry if you took offense to that barb, but I wasn't the person that originated the quip, and it wasn't really directed just at you anyway, but to everybody participating.

    You keep saying all these things as if they are true, but providing no evidence to what you're saying. We're not allowed to disagree with you, dolphin, is that it? Your style of reasoning works well if you're musing about happiness or whatever, but I just think your understanding of the functions is a little off.

    Behavior in it's purest form does not make any sense. How do you know whether it's an action-reaction or premeditated?
    Material evidence. Substance, objective matter. There always has to be evidence in the scene of the crime, before somebody is charged guilty. The way the world works (the best way we know how), is things before thoughts, never thoughts before things. Even though that's what most (bad)psychologists/hippies/socionics fans/psychiatrist 'quacks' that should have gotten fired from the APA years ago/new age 'law of attraction writers' insist it being (thoughts>things) it doesn't make it true. A lot of things that work well and have progressed our society and culture through the dark ages, scientific and technological things, are things that are actually very 'counter-intuitive.' It's only the 'user interface' the illusion, that appears to be intuitive, and those hunches you get that are telling you that you're right, and we're wrong. But look a little deeper at the 0s and 1s and you will discover this isn't true.

    People thought thoughts before things for a long time and no matter how nice, how ideal, how pretty you make that sound, how much 'FOR SURE!' it makes sense in your head- in reality, it can NEVER work that way, and you'd put too many innocent people behind bars. It starts wars, violence, and hurting people. Prejudices and 'half-truths' all abound.

    Model A is the closest model we have to verifiable, objective, peer-reviewed, non-biased reality so it's the best to utilize. Any other model needs to have a lot more substantial evidence (Matter that matches up to physical behaviors we can observe) before we take it seriously. Otherwise we just sound interesting without really actually saying anything at all.

    Period.

  33. #33
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Btw dolphin, I admit it was uncalled for to make the mental masturbation quip. But likewise your comment was also an unnecessary personal attack.

    This conversation is very interesting to me, so let's leave personal attacks out of it and keep things civil (and to the issue at hand.) No 'you look like a ditzy inane faggot who doesn't know anything' comments by you and no 'You look like a 14 year old asian boy that gets molested a lot' by me.

    Oh and Expat, I enjoyed your musings about Fi being laser beams between two people. But I say Fe is like that too, only it's smaller laser beams, between a group of people. The beams aren't as "Pure" or strong as the Fe beams, but they cover a wider distance. I just thought that Fe as being like a fog thing was a little off.

  34. #34
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ugh. I don't like the idea of trying to "shut down" discussion. I think my main problem was the method of attacking what everyone says when they're trying to understand Socionics in a way that is based on Model A (i.e. interest in learning Model A). It's an extremely frustrating mode of communication. To use glamourama's example, it's like everyone is speaking one language and you're cutting in with another language trying to prove their language is wrong. If you don't agree with Model A itself, fine, I don't actually have a problem with that. It's the attempt to push everyone else's ideology to match yours that I think is bugging me. I'm interested in Model A. Since I'm not at all satisfied that I fully understand it, I'm not ready to evaluate if it is or is not "true" and no amount of "it's wrong! wrong! wrong!" is going to change that.

    I was thinking about this when I was reading the thread on EIIs and being mean. Smilingeyes in one post said "that's Model A foolery," and I was noticing how this doesn't bother me at all. Why? Because it is clear. I know Smilingeyes developed a different model, I know this model is supposedly quite intricate even, and he also set the premises in his post. It doesn't interfere with communication. It is able to acknowledge two different systems simultaneously without this sort of interference of "blind premises." What I mean by that is that when you and strrrng and Allie began "shooting down Model A" you didn't even say that's what you were doing or define your premises... instead you sort of entered into threads trying to re-write I guess the "general thinking". That's what was bothering me.

    I don't know how to try to explain this any better. Bla.

    Eta: I guess what I'm saying is that defining ones own system and trying to change everyone's ideologies are two different things. So which is it? Do you want us all to think what you think?

    Also I do know that you, strrrng, and Allie don't necessarily have the same views (I'm not trying to imply that)... or that your views = Ashton's views even if part of the origin may have been "Model X". Also strrrng's views seem to actually be pretty close to Model A for the most part, and there are wide differences I think between your views and his.

    I keep adding things.

    The reason why being able to acknowledge two different systems is important is because there is overlap. There are some shared things in the different systems. And it's that overlap which "muddies" things because some premises and underlying conceptions are actually the same, while others aren't. And I'm glad there is overlap, I think it's interesting. Anyway.

    lasjflkasd

    I guess primarily my main objection in my mind has been "Just say you're using a different system! Stop trying to look at it like there 'can be only one' and trying to re-write that 'one' and go start a thread saying Model A is wrong and here's why!" It's like if you're trying to challenge the system at its core, then the most effective way to do that is to start a new thread and say you're doing that. But what you were doing was attacking people's posts and seemingly inferring all sorts of things about what they might be thinking and what their misconceptions are, etc. And then when people object to being treated this way you accuse people of "not questioning" and blindly revering the founder of Socionics. I really find that frustrating.
    Last edited by inumbra; 04-17-2009 at 03:12 PM.

  35. #35
    07490's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    there
    Posts
    3,047
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The theory is that there are 8 functions (e.g. leading, creative, suggestive, etc.) that make up the psyche and that these functions interact in certain ways to process information. These functions are screening for certain things in reality quite heavily, while ignoring, avoiding, or being quite picky about certain other things in reality. The things the interwoven make-up of the functions (i.e. information metabolism) are filtering are defined as "IM elements". For instance, a leading person's information metabolism is screening for a lot of , finding it can see it, move it, and interact with it. The theory notes that people seem to be screening for 8 kinds of information out of reality (when looking at all the people and seeing these patterns). So reality is said to be made up of these 8 IM aspects. It's possible reality really isn't, and even if it is this seems to be a rather arbitrary division, or perhaps it's more of a convenient division to reflect what humans seem to "see." But for the sake of how the psyche is breaking down reality, it might as well be made of 8 aspects because that's apparently (if this model of the psyche is "true") what the psyche does with it. I think of aspects as... if you're seeing a shadow on the wall, then there is something there blocking the light and creating the shadow. We see the shadow (the IM element)... the IM aspect is a more vague term that is trying to spot the object creating the shadow and what that object actually is or might be. We can't see reality, we only see what we've filtered out of it, so "IM aspect" is almost a sort of "dummy variable" to represent whatever it is in reality that we are connecting to when we screen a certain brand of information.

    The way the 8 aspects are defined though seems to be in a rather all-encompassing way such that if you take any one of them away, reality is clearly missing something vital. It would be like dividing reality into a matrix and then suddenly removing a piece of it. Reality has been arbitrarily defined as consisting of these 8 "pieces"... Not necessarily because that's how reality is but because we have to define it somehow so we can discuss it. So if you change the pieces, then you're defining it differently (not necessarily more or less "correctly") and what you say will become somewhat incompatible with someone defining it differently. I personally see these sort of "definitions" as incredibly arbitrary, as simply a structure to use to communicate with. As long as I'm investigating it, the structure is handy to have to create a way to arrange it. I am just trying to investigate Model A, not create my own way of defining reality. If there is something about IM that is actually observable either inside myself, or through interactions with people, or in archetypes, or patterns, or anything... that's what I'm looking for. How it's defined, what structure it's given, etc. I don't really care about that yet. I just want to look at it, not rearrange it. That's why I find these debates frustrating. It's like trying to get somewhere, but no one can because they keep having minor disputes about who is going to drive in which car or something, and we can never leave but stay squabbling in the parking lot.

    I don't see it as being "more or less equipped." For instance in Starfall's example (I thought it was a good example) it's not that she was "inequipped" to deal with the Te information, but that she wasn't looking at it. In order to look at the information we're interested in (on a deep down psychic level) we can't look at "opposing" information at the same time. It's not about being equipped. The reason it looks that way is because people are pre-disposed to look at certain kinds of information and value certain kinds of information more than other kinds. On some level that goes deeper than will or the upper layers of consciousness; the psyche desires some kinds of information and doesn't desire others... It sees what it sees because that's what it "wants" to see. For whatever reason, [/b]the psyche can't see Fe and Te at the same time (for example)... I don't know if it's impossible to see them both at the same time...[/b] if we could transcend our "ego" then who knows. But, basically, as far as the theory is concerned it's not possible to see them both clearly at the same time; if you want to see one you must ignore the other. And if everything about seeing one of them frees you and fills your life with meaning, then of course you'll pursue things that are rich in the exchange of that kind of information.

    I'm not sure it's about utility or doing the job. Fe can't do what Te can do. Fe can't provide the information that Te can. They do different jobs.

    It's about values. Screening for Ni+Fe means not looking at Si and especially Te so much. The LIE, who is screening for Te+Ni says "oh god, not everything is about Ni what is wrong with you, look, Ni is imporant, *but* everything is actually about Te. If you can't see that, then I'll just look over your shoulder all the time and redirect your attention to the more important Te matters." It's a minor difference (incapable of processing Te at all vs. not seeing Te because of looking at Fe/Ni) but it seems to be the difference between saying that everyone processes 4 kinds of info vs. everyone processes 8 kinds.

    The implications if everyone only processes information from half of reality is that we really can't communicate. So your conflictor, for instance, becomes essentially an alien from another universe. I'm not sure we could really even have developed a shared verbal and written language were that the case.
    I will comment on only this particular post and will ignore the other fact of argument in this thread. I happen to stomp on only this post by loki and I bolded things that was said which I happen to think is true. it proves to me that if you don't believe in model A, all the otehr things you have read about Socionics will not work, It is the based frame work of how this theory is put together.

    the psyche can't see Fe and Te at the same time (for example)... I don't know if it's impossible to see them both at the same time...
    If someone has Fe or Te leading, then both and is an accepting function according to model A, where in some level they are both being accepted at the same time, but according to wiki, It is impossible for both of those function to be on by an individual at the same time, you might be able to accept the information from on outsider, but not when creating it, i think imho.

    if you want to see one you must ignore the other.
    Yes

    It's about values. Screening for Ni+Fe means not looking at Si and especially Te so much. The LIE, who is screening for Te+Ni says "oh god, not everything is about Ni what is wrong with you, look, Ni is imporant, *but* everything is actually about Te. If you can't see that, then I'll just look over your shoulder all the time and redirect your attention to the more important Te matters." It's a minor difference (incapable of processing Te at all vs. not seeing Te because of looking at Fe/Ni) but it seems to be the difference between saying that everyone processes 4 kinds of info vs. everyone processes 8 kinds.
    This is a good example if you want to use it to prove that everyone does experiences all 8 function and not just four, which people think it only seem to be dominant,creative,mobilizing, dual-seeking.

    I think it is pretty obvious to people who knows Socionics that we can get the taste of all 8 functions, even creating all 8 functions of your own, some are just in favor of some IM functions, are weak on some, are seeking of that function etc...
    (D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    1)
    A girl who I want to date, asks me: well first tell me how tall you are?
    My reply: well I will answer that, if you first tell me how much you weigh!

    2)
    A girl I was dating said she was oh so great at sex etc, but she didn't do blowjobs.
    My reply: Oh I'm really romantic etc, I just will never take you out to dinner.

  36. #36
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .
    Last edited by Diana; 04-17-2009 at 03:53 PM. Reason: Text format is screwy again.

  37. #37
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    sigh. nvm.
    Last edited by inumbra; 04-17-2009 at 10:24 PM.

  38. #38
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  39. #39
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    From the Wikisocion link:

    Socionics personality type and the functions themselves are less about what it is that you do, and more about how it is that you do what you do. It's the style of your actions, not so much the actions in and of themselves.
    I cannot agree with this. What I decide to do in a particular situation will be based on how my dominant functions assess the situation and I will act accordingly. Slacker_Mom's example of her husband bringing home food she likes because he knows she is stressed out is an example. His assessment of her stress: "she needs to feel more comfortable, so I will bring her food and tell her I will watch the kids so I can take a bath." In the same situation, my non-ISTp bf would ask me "did you take your meds?" because he does not assess the situation through Si, but through Te. I would try to find out why the person is stressed and comb through possible reasons. My ESFp friend would tell me to lighten up and get ready for a night on the town (or something of that nature). I honestly don't know how else I would explain that when I think of all the people I know and their types, I can safely say that they would act differently in the same situation and their action coincides with their dominant functions.

    I think when it comes to functions you don't possess in your quadra values, you'll never be able to have direct experiential access to them in any real/actual sense. A non-valued function cannot and never will be part of the 'psychological infrastructure' that orchestrates your individual consciousness. It can only be understood abstractly, and with enough observation and contact with people who have the functions you don't have, you can develop a working understanding of what that function does and derive an accurate conception of what that function is like for the person using it. You could even superficially emulate it yourself to a rudimentary degree, potentially well enough to succeed in duping people into believing that you do really possess it. Beware though, don't do this around intelligent people who do have that function, because they will get suspicious quickly and anxious to call your bluff. Don't make the mistake either of believing that you are actually using the function. The only way to truly use a function, is to experience it directly. If you can't now, you never will.
    I really wonder what this is based on because I don't see any reason for this to be true whatsoever. Everyone uses all the functions and has a preference for some. My weak Ti does not mean that I only understand Ti in the abstract. I just don't feel very confident in it and it's not the function that kicks in naturally. But I can filter information through Ti, I am just not comfortable doing this. No offense, Ashton, but this sounds it was born out of misguided Ni-elitism.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  40. #40
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    1) Any type could take on and front an observable behavioral trait and most people wouldn't know the difference.
    Yes, which is why you can't reliably type a person you don't know well. But no healthy person will front a trait for a prolonged period of time. You all should see me when I try to act like an ISTj with my students. I last about 2 minutes.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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