Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Type my functions ArchonAlarion split

  1. #1
    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 Type my functions [ArchonAlarion split]

    An Ne/Ti speaks like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Here's my own current understanding, and I don't vouch it as the truth or anything because it's so heavily based in a hypothesis about cognitive structure, obviously none of which I have the expertise to prove. I'm also more interested in the social aspects of socionics.

    I think It's slightly more subtle than what you're claiming. The SEI will perceive the dog and cat as objects because that's what they are. Individual, independent and static. He hasn't really taken interest in them and is using Se to initially observe and catalogue them.

    When the dog comes closer to be petted, or when the SEI takes interest, he enters the SEI's sensory field. Then aspects of the dog - like the dog's back - begin to be understood and manipulated as a field, similar to the SEIs own body.

    Another example. When someone is drinking juice, the juice is perceived as an Si field in interaction with the person's taste buds but the hard glass is perceived as Se. If you splash the juice on your face, it's perceived as direct contact and through Se. The sticky residue is perceived as an Si field.

    Those are simple examples (just for demonstration) that integrate into more complex systems depending on intelligence and other qualities.

    Ne acquires glimpses into the nature of objects directly, upon sight of an object. For example, I see a mathematical problem, and without reference to an established system or any guide, the equation's form itself suggests how to manipulate the symbols to arrive at an answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    It's hard to describe any intuition, but I'll try to contrast it with Ni. Ni is similar to Si, except, instead of a physical body, Ni collects information into an intellectual body, and incoming information is made to fit or is assimilated into the system. This body could be a set of memories, experiences or even part of the individual's life-narrative. As such it is dynamic, constantly morphing and even slightly changed by the information it absorbs. An Ni dominant gravitates towards intellectual harmony in the same way an Si dominant gravitates towards sensory harmony. Unassimilated information represents danger and must be either investigated or avoided altogether.

    Ne is the opposite of Ni. I see a piece of information, and rather than making it fit into a framework, I give it the complete benefit of the doubt. I think, which system best categorizes it? rather than how do I categorize it within my system? Since it's not always possible to categorize something, whether because it's too complex or because too many possibilities are present, Ne winds up with a chaotic intellectual life and no intellectual harmony. As a rule, whatever value the object has doesn't come from my own impression of it, but seems to derive from outside - from properties the object itself has.


    An Ni/Fe speaks like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Strrrng
    The corruption will flood and suffuse us all eventually, no matter how hard we fight the current. Memories will fade, hopes will be sullied, people cleansed, killed, freed. We all lose ourselves somewhere along the way -- between our sense of duty and feeling of purpose, between expressing the truth and selling a good story, between fulfilling roles and changing the established order. Everyone falls -- often as nothing more than dried out vagrants in the desert, gasping as the stale fumes and particles are swept into us -- and lost foot-steps form the stencils that the cement for the buildings of tomorrow will be poured into. Innocents will die, the undercurrent will take care of them; the noble will perish in the silent darkness of the night ocean. Those who have been swept around and tossed back to shore will tell the tales of those formidable waters; memories will be enveloped in the relentless ripples of the waves that stole who we were yesterday and threw us into who we were to become tomorrow. It isn't some idealistic search against the current -- Fitzgerald got that shit wrong. It's an ineluctable venture into the endless land of tombs that we are compelled to set out upon, because fighting for our lives makes us feel like we are actually affecting something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strrrng
    Writing is only substantial when the phenomena captured are swiftly sifted through the mind, commuted through the heart, and spit out through the ink. People really shouldn't bother writing if they think of things to jot down, sit around and word-smith, or restructure a paragraph several times for the best "feel." Motherfuckers don't even know what a feeling is these days. Like I've said before, words are bullets that penetrate into, and explode within the mind, their fragments coruscating into sporadic images and associations at lightning speed. You can't "know" what you write, you don't see the ideas just before they transfer to the paper; you just react as the impetuses hit you, striking with the tip of the pen in every direction of impact. Are people supposed to read your mind and linguistically masturbate their way to a level of "comprehension" of some neat idea that may or may not affect them? No. Read something once -- your immediate reaction is the sole beacon of quality. Write shit once, because the moment is the only thing worth capturing. Don't sit around, weaving in and out of time, slipping phrases into the empty spaces at arbitrarily-chosen intervals. Every perception, reaction, feeling -- they all need to be compressed into one pithy ball of substance. Put all the powder in the bullet, meld it together, and send it into someone's head. Don't break it down and show them how it's designed and what its purpose is and blah blah. People want to see shit, not be lectured about it. So many "writers" -- they forget this. They get carried away with things like imaginative poems, intricate storylines, eloquent syntax. There's nothing to define good writing by and you can't "become" a writer. It's just a potential, a sphere of energy that is either shattered and released or danced around and pointed to. The real writers are the ones who unlock windows of humanity, and let people feel a transitory breath of fresh air, catch a wistful glance into the vast horizon -- they actually create an effect in people that won't pass with the day and get tossed into the congestion of their dreams, only to be faintly recalled some years later. Take the timeless and evince it, take the universal and make it personal, take reality and the soul and smash them together until nobody can tell the difference anymore. That is what a real writer does.

    Neither you nor I have the metaphoric attraction that Strrrng has. The Ni is obvious; His abstractions are subjective, and continuous. They are not module, you cannot break them up into smaller concepts, they are not replicable, they do not fit into a framework. His writing style is completely different. To me, the difference between static and dynamic is obvious. Your words are broken up into clearly separate, discrete parts, He has a single continuing train of thought.

    My abstractions are not personal, they can be replaced, stored, modified, sythesized, and fractured. They are "module"

    So if you will agree that Strrrng is at least conveying Ni, I am pretty damn sure I don't write like that and tbh as interesting as what he said is, I find myself often skipping through his big blocks of text because there is no associative concepts I can latch onto.

    Do you see the difference?

  2. #2
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you want to debate this further, start a new thread. Don't derail this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    Neither you nor I have the metaphoric attraction that Strrrng has. The Ni is obvious; His abstractions are subjective, and continuous. They are not module, you cannot break them up into smaller concepts, they are not replicable, they do not fit into a framework. His writing style is completely different. To me, the difference between static and dynamic is obvious. Your words are broken up into clearly separate, discrete parts, He has a single continuing train of thought.
    So by this criteria, Tom Ezra and Expat are static types.

    My abstractions are not personal, they can be replaced, stored, modified, sythesized, and fractured. They are "module"
    Why wouldn't a personal system have all the qualities you listed?

    So if you will agree that Strrrng is at least conveying Ni, I am pretty damn sure I don't write like that and tbh as interesting as what he said is, I find myself often skipping through his big blocks of text because there is no associative concepts I can latch onto.
    I can usually understand and classify strrrng's concepts, but I don't always agree with him.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

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

    Default

    So by this criteria, Tom Ezra and Expat are static types.
    They're Rational types. That counts for something too in regard to the styles Archon pointed out.

    Maybe you should explain what makes you doubt the ENTp typing that has seemingly been working fine up to this point.

  4. #4
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    They're Rational types. That counts for something too in regard to the styles Archon pointed out.
    That's a good catch. I was actually waiting for him to retort that they're Si ego types, and that makes them more concrete, in addition to being strong in Ne by his system. Then I would have brought up some old posts by some consensus INFps where it could be argued they have a very similar "modular" style.

    Not that I even disagree with his particular method, I just think his conclusions are a bit amateurish.

    Maybe you should explain what makes you doubt the ENTp typing that has seemingly been working fine up to this point.
    I'm fairly sure of my type according to most of the typing systems I've seen, but it's just a few relevant inconsistencies that I'd rather not completely divulge. Anyway, it's always good to ask others what they see and have some peer-review without complicating things with more information that could be taken either way.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

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

    Default

    Some people write more clearly than others in general (as in, in a way that most everyone finds clear), some write more formally, some write more openly and freely (as their raw free-flowing thoughts), etc. So those sorts of considerations would factor in as well.

  6. #6
    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 jxrtes View Post
    If you want to debate this further, start a new thread. Don't derail this one.
    Heh? Wth are you talking about?

    Didn't you want evidence of you being Ne? I was showing you the difference between Ni and Ne writing...

    How am I derailing the thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    So by this criteria, Tom Ezra and Expat are static types.
    No, why? I mean they (imo) value Ne and will therefore not write in the way Strrrng does, but I've found they (online for Ezra and Expat, both online and irl for Tom) write in a way that I'd consider dynamic.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Why wouldn't a personal system have all the qualities you listed?
    Personal system or abstraction? I'm saying that his abstractions are subjective, the metaphors he uses are chosen for personal meaning and relevence to the reader and himself. The phrases are overtly symbolic, objects have a special abstract relationship to the observer. His words are universal, they do not apply to a specific physical setting like Si would.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    I can usually understand and classify strrrng's concepts, but I don't always agree with him.
    Yeah so can I, but they're not meant to be. In the Ni mind you should just see the intrinsic "soul" or "essense" attached to the context and leave it at that. The cutting up of the cloudy Ni into discrete conceptual frames or "nodes" (Ne) will annoy the Ni/Se. Your supposed to just see the symbolism as it is and not try and explain by some physical interaction of molecules. Ni-ers hate it when you steal their magic and explain it away with "science" (I'm speaking in general, simple terms). When you chop up their Ni into Ne bits that will fit with an Si outlook of a physical, direct, tangible (demonstrable) context (setting, environment, realm), instead of a thematic, symbolic, spiritual(?) one, they get pissed.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    That's a good catch. I was actually waiting for him to retort that they're Si ego types, and that makes them more concrete, in addition to being strong in Ne by his system. Then I would have brought up some old posts by some consensus INFps where it could be argued they have a very similar "modular" style.

    Not that I even disagree with his particular method, I just think his conclusions are a bit amateurish.
    More concrete than Te subs? No. The "concrete-abstract" scale traditionally goes:

    Concrete <-----------------> Abstract
    Se, Te, Ti, Si, Ne, Fe, Fi, Ni

    Imo, Si is the least concrete, concrete element. Its subjective and dynamic, so to me Si is kind of abstract.

    Strong in Ne? Well I think they use Ne when perceiving object statics, instead of Se, but I'd say they have a more primitive unrefined version of Ne, then Ne egos.

    And INFp's dont have that module style. They take specific concrete objects (Se) and imbue them with subjective abstract meanings/relevence. They do not see the purpose of organizing the conceptual properties that make up an object, they'd rather find symbolic meaning based on the surface qualities of the thing in question.

  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

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    You're derailing the thread because you're trying to convince me you're a certain type in order to draw a subjective similarity between us. Two things 1) this is my type thread, not yours, and 2) I can't waste my time hearing a case as subjective as yours. If you can't level more specific arguments about me without comparing me to you, then I don't really care what you have to say.
    That was not my intent, at all, and I can tell you're being obviously antagonistic towards me based on non thread related things.

    If you don't see the similarities or differences (which I was only bringing to your attention that I think they're there) then please don't ridicule me as if I'm intentionally derailing the thread for my own attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Your only statement in that vein so far was the "module" thing, and it's not even an argument because you've provided no proof, just a statement that my writing satisfies some rather trite and subjective criteria of being "modular."


    I'm asking the mods to move sections of this thread to alternative theories btw.
    1. You are likely confusing what I'm saying about "module" with the Ti that INFps express.

    2. Not to be a dick to anndelise, but her post, which you described as "very insightful" was even less descriptive than mine. Unless you can explain how I'm providing no proof (Did I not give you posts to illustrate the differences?)

    And uh, thats an annoying childish ploy btw. Like when all the kids in the school yard pretend its just the wind whenever a certain kid speaks, so the kid ends up breaking down and crying.

    What have I said that constitutes it being moved to alternate theories? I've read stranger things about Ne and Ni posted in general, so c'mon man what gives?

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Sort of like your Si/Ne analogy, your modular analogy and most other analogies I've heard you make about socionics?



    That's true, but what you're describing doesn't directly manifest in writing or behaviour.

    According to that, it's still much more concrete than Ni.

    Glam and starfall have a modular style, because their posts are clear and mature. Modify your linguistic hypothesis a little better and look for a lot of examples, then come back.
    Yeah it is sorta like my analogy, I guess.

    Yeah it does manifest in writing. Like how Strrrng carries on a single idea, describing it or elaborating on it with symbolism. Like he even describes himself how he writes from point A to point B just carrying on linearly. The Ne-er describes in short capsulated bits.

    If I was to illustrate it it would be like this:

    ............................=======>
    ...............=======^
    Ni: =====^

    Ne: (=) (=) (=) (=) (=) >

    And if you have a problem with that, then fine! I claim no expertise in socionics, but don't have undue animosity towards me. What the hell have I done to you?

    But yes, I should certainly continue research into linguistic styles.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    This part is the most interesting thing you've said so far. It's extremely interesting because it's the alternate possibility to Model A NT/SF/ST/NF clubs. According to that, an ILE has a strong awareness of object dynamics because of Te > Fe, and strong awareness of dynamic fields because of Ni > Si.
    Right okay, well I would say an ENTp has primitive, but phillic awareness of Fe and primitive, but phobic awareness of Te.

  8. #8
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    That was not my intent, at all, and I can tell you're being obviously antagonistic towards me based on non thread related things.

    If you don't see the similarities or differences (which I was only bringing to your attention that I think they're there) then please don't ridicule me as if I'm intentionally derailing the thread for my own attention.
    I'm definitely not ridiculing you for anything so trite. I don't care whether or not you want attention. I'm ridiculing your criteria that we're the same type on the basis of similarities between us, which was a really stupid and completely retarded way to type people.

    You're derailing the thread because I'd like it not to involve too many subjective hypotheses and cheesy conjectures. Even more importantly, I already know why you type me ILE, so I don't need to hear a retread of your case.

    1. You are likely confusing what I'm saying about "module" with the Ti that INFps express.
    No, I'm not.

    2. Not to be a dick to anndelise, but her post, which you described as "very insightful" was even less descriptive than mine. Unless you can explain how I'm providing no proof (Did I not give you posts to illustrate the differences?)
    All the description in the world doesn't make a post insightful. Ever read any of tcaud's posts? I could see immediately where anndelise was coming from, but I have serious reservations about where you're coming from.

    She answered the question properly, by giving a definition of T vs F based on independent criteria. Your reason for why I'm ILE is through comparison with yourself, which is intended to prove that you're also ILE. You need to learn about circular reasoning. Your other "modular" criteria is better, but alas too subjective and way too experimental for me to base something as personal as my typing around.

    It's not a power play, it's not about me not liking you. Why would I make a judgment about something so important based on something so incredibly petty? If you must know the truth, I like you about as much as I like any stranger I just met. What I don't like about your attitude is this incredible persistence in shoving your ideas, critically arrived at or not, down my throat at any opportunity that presents itself.

    And uh, thats an annoying childish ploy btw. Like when all the kids in the school yard pretend its just the wind whenever a certain kid speaks, so the kid ends up breaking down and crying.

    What have I said that constitutes it being moved to alternate theories? I've read stranger things about Ne and Ni posted in general, so c'mon man what gives?
    Because I don't want my type thread (which still has potential) to turn into a 5 page pointless argument where I try to correct a million logical fallacies.

    Yeah it is sorta like my analogy, I guess.
    So why aren't you at least considering the possibility of Ni ego for yourself?

    Yeah it does manifest in writing. Like how Strrrng carries on a single idea, describing it or elaborating on it with symbolism. Like he even describes himself how he writes from point A to point B just carrying on linearly. The Ne-er describes in short capsulated bits.
    Ne is supposed to unite processes into very encompassing metaphors, yes. The problem is that as a criterion, it's very open to personal interpretation of what constitutes "short capsulated bits."

    In addition it's not a very encompassing criterion at all - wouldn't you have to factor in rationality, Te ego, extroversion/introversion into the equation? How about the claim that Si egos use as few words as possible?

    In my opinion, niff write in shorter capsulated bits than other Ni egos, but this is because I believe he's extremely focussed on Te. Expat writes in even more capsulated bits because of his focus on Te, rationality and extroversion.

    I write in much less capsulated bits than Expat. My writing is far more difficult to understand. By your criteria, I could be construed as a dynamic type.

    So you see, the phenomenon is more complicated than how you are presenting it. It's unfortunate that you were someone who seemed so incredibly reasonable when you got here, before you accepted the socionix dogma, and allowing yourself to be assimilated into their social role, started attacking other people's views. Even so, I believe there's a small kernel of truth in what you're saying.

    Would it perhaps surprise you to hear that other people have come to exact opposite conclusions regarding static versus dynamic writing?

    For instance, labcoat is of the opinion that dynamics write sentences with less "arity" (a measure of complexity) than statics. According to this view, statics string together more ideas into single words or phrases than do dynamics. One criterion Rick used to type two people as LSIs (tcaud and huitzilipochtilli) is the sheer complexity behind their writing, which he says is related to Se.

    If I was to illustrate it it would be like this:

    ............................=======>
    ...............=======^
    Ni: =====^

    Ne: (=) (=) (=) (=) (=) >

    And if you have a problem with that, then fine! I claim no expertise in socionics, but don't have undue animosity towards me. What the hell have I done to you?

    But yes, I should certainly continue research into linguistic styles.



    Right okay, well I would say an ENTp has primitive, but phillic awareness of Fe and primitive, but phobic awareness of Te.
    Yes, the subject is infinitely more complex than what it's often made out to be. A good scientist tries to find ways to disprove his ideas. A good idea will be able to withstand any argument you throw at it.

    Now you know what to do. Go do some research and good luck!
    Last edited by xerx; 05-19-2009 at 12:44 AM. Reason: corrected muddled writing
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  9. #9
    Creepy-male

    Default

    "Stfu, Six. You can't think for yourself."
    "Yes I can! That guy who I trust told me so!"

    Ne.

Posting Permissions

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