Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Vocabulary associated with the information elements

  1. #1
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Vocabulary associated with the information elements

    Vocabulary - Wikisocion


    Has anyone seen this? How well do you think it works as a tool for typing someone? Do you think valuers tend to use the vocabulary more frequently than the vocabulary? How accurate do you think these lists are?

    I value but its a weak function, so I rarely use the vocabulary. The and vocabulary, I use all the time and to a lesser extent and .
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  2. #2
    Creepy-male

    Default

    And people think is hard to follow. Wow

    Anyway, I'm going to affirm what HC said above. I think I basically tend to focus around Ti and Si (short sentences, discrete movements), but it's more around what you talk about. Like with HC's LSEdad, my LIEdad seems to like to focus around money, efficiency, Effort, and all this other alien stuff.

    On the flip side, though, I think I'm one of the nerdier SEIs, so what I tend to talk about are topics that interest me, Random Fun Facts, etc. I think this is why there's still some residual doubt as to whether or not I'm ILE. With that in mind, I think you also need to look at delivery and--here I go, contradicting myself--figures of speech, a lot of which are in that vocabulary list.

  3. #3
    Creepy-male

    Default

    You did?

  4. #4
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I hate this. It makes sound so airy and faggy and it's not really that way. Well kinda is, I guess- but like they don't really understand anything to me. Quite a very 'crude' and oversimplistic way of looking at the functions.

    It just sucks. To me. It's like so superficial and cliche. I don't like any of it. There's no true depth to it. Anybody could act like that.

    I can't believe this is published. Keep your ideas to yourselves sometimes unless you test them in reality using peer-reviewed tools.

  5. #5
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Well, what's wrong with extracting your own depth of meaning?

  6. #6
    sigma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    It just sucks. To me. It's like so superficial and cliche. I don't like any of it. There's no true depth to it. Anybody could act like that.
    If a man is pointing to the moon and you're just looking at his finger you might find a lot of flaws in the finger. I know is not entirely like that but try to look beyond words. For example, try to disregard the phrase entirely and just keep the "feeling", the attitude, the direction of the phrase. I think it might stop being so cliche. It might still suck, but maybe not that hard.
    "What is love?"
    "The total absence of fear," said the Master.
    "What is it we fear?"
    "Love," said the Master.

    I chose Love

  7. #7
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nothing. But you can't really gaze deep into something when it's so banal and dumb to begin with. I like looking deeply into things, but if there's no innate depth then it's just like '...'

    Also to whoever wrote this, please understand that I'm not criticizing you. I'm just criticizing your ideas...

  8. #8
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it might stop being so cliche. It might still suck, but maybe not that hard.
    I find a lot of your advice to me patronizing and heavy-handed. I'm not REALLY angry and fed-up with this as I'm coming across, really. I just...don't think they really get it. I mean come on. Nobody in their right minds would like some of the stuff the and descriptions said. "What you did is a waste of time." Whoa! That's not Te. That's being an asshole. "I don't know I'll just dream all day like a fag." That's not Ni. That's dreaming all day like a fag.

  9. #9
    sigma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Nothing. But you can't really gaze deep into something when it's so banal and dumb to begin with. I like looking deeply into things, but if there's no innate depth then it's just like '...'
    no, no, no, the problem is that you look to deep at the thing.... not that you looked to shallow... try looking less at the words and more at the feelings. For example

    * I saw a sky like I have never seen before.

    If you hear this in a robotic, empty voice... it sounds plain stupid. But if you don't see the words and only see a sky that is leaving someone breathless/speechless and see this person trying to say something about a thing so beautiful that he know he cannot express, you will hear the statement in a different way... I you hear the dreamy inflections in the voice of the speaker and I think it might make sense.

    Also, as a side note, is not the words that count but the communication, the way they are expressed. If for each of the phrases you would have an youtube clip, things will look way clearer.
    "What is love?"
    "The total absence of fear," said the Master.
    "What is it we fear?"
    "Love," said the Master.

    I chose Love

  10. #10
    sigma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    I find a lot of your advice to me patronizing and heavy-handed.
    It happens. For what it's worth, it was not intended to be patronizing.
    "What is love?"
    "The total absence of fear," said the Master.
    "What is it we fear?"
    "Love," said the Master.

    I chose Love

  11. #11
    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 BulletsAndDoves View Post
    I hate this. It makes sound so airy and faggy and it's not really that way. Well kinda is, I guess- but like they don't really understand anything to me. Quite a very 'crude' and oversimplistic way of looking at the functions.

    It just sucks. To me. It's like so superficial and cliche. I don't like any of it. There's no true depth to it. Anybody could act like that.

    I can't believe this is published. Keep your ideas to yourselves sometimes unless you test them in reality using peer-reviewed tools.
    Agreed.

    Also I've never heard anyone speak like the Ni talk. Ever ever ever.

    The Si talk is cliche and petty.

    tbh I relate most with Ne and Ti, some parts of Fe, a few parts of Si... yeah.

    My fav one is "She looks yummy" lol
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

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

  12. #12
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sigma, just out of curosity- what is your type?

  13. #13
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    The Si talk is cliche and petty.
    My ESE friend talks like that all the time.

    "These buffs. They're DELEESHUS. Om nom nom."

  14. #14
    sigma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Sigma, just out of curosity- what is your type?
    IEI
    "What is love?"
    "The total absence of fear," said the Master.
    "What is it we fear?"
    "Love," said the Master.

    I chose Love

  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

    @Gul: yes lol okay they do.

    Its more something I/Si-ers talk like when we're silly or messin around.

    Okay this is back to the whole health/food/comfort deal.

    What I meant was that it'd be more interesting if the vocab (in general) was more about the meter of sentences. Like how the sentences are structured and such. I think the Ti and Te went into a bit about that.

    Like I can't write in big text blocks, for example. Well I can, but I don't want to. I like writing in short blips. Easier to digest for the reader. Easier to review and analyze at later dates, etc.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

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

  16. #16
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    those words can be misleading when you take them to litteraly.

  17. #17
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    I hate this. It makes sound so airy and faggy and it's not really that way. Well kinda is, I guess- but like they don't really understand anything to me. Quite a very 'crude' and oversimplistic way of looking at the functions.

    It just sucks. To me. It's like so superficial and cliche. I don't like any of it. There's no true depth to it. Anybody could act like that.

    I can't believe this is published. Keep your ideas to yourselves sometimes unless you test them in reality using peer-reviewed tools.

    I sort of feel that way about the one. Sounds like too much teenage slang and poor use of English.

    The article is on Wikisocion.com so anyone can post or edit something. So if you see stuff on there you think doesn't capture the essence of or whatever function, why not edit it?
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  18. #18
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't see the Vocabulary as a "tool for typing."

  19. #19
    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

    It should be.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

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

  20. #20
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    okay, maybe it's a shovel, while there are other things that are bulldozers

  21. #21
    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

    It has the potential to be a bulldozer though.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

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

  22. #22
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    Vocabulary - Wikisocion


    Has anyone seen this? How well do you think it works as a tool for typing someone? Do you think valuers tend to use the vocabulary more frequently than the vocabulary? How accurate do you think these lists are?

    I value but its a weak function, so I rarely use the vocabulary. The and vocabulary, I use all the time and to a lesser extent and .
    First we must answer the question: Is type real?

    until this question is answered all of this talk of vocabulary as it pertains to type is meaningless nonesense.

  23. #23
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post
    First we must answer the question: Is type real?

    until this question is answered all of this talk of vocabulary as it pertains to type is meaningless nonesense.
    Types are not real, because Socionics is only a model of the human mind.

    It's like, are numbers real? No, they're just representations of quantities of physical things.

    EDIT

    And no, maths is not "real" either, it's still a model (or rather, all the little bits and pieces that describe different things are models, but you get my point, I hope?), and still has little glitches here and there where it doesn't match 1:1 with reality. I think.

    I probably dug myself a hole with that analogy. Oh well.

    jxrtes, tag in!

  24. #24
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Verbalization is probably one of the most consistent indicator of information usage via the mental ring functions.

    The more someone works on their ego/super-ego the more detailed and nuanced their verbalization will be.

    But just because someone says some word doesn't mean much about their type.

    Someone that says "I don't know" constantly is probably not valuing Te.

    Someone that often says "I know better then you" might value it and may even be strong in Te. This of course, may not be true, but it still shows confidence.

    Someone that has a need to explain things to others understanding might value Ti, they might even try to explain a exceedingly complex topic and fail, but that doesn't mean they don't try their utmost.

    Someone that tells colorful stories to brighten everyone's mood might value Fe and Si.

    The word usage and the final effect are not so important as the intentions of the speaker, and this is harder to decipher in people merely unskilled at their ego functions. In this sense, typing can be difficult and imprecise, people can often just mimic their experiences back.

    Even for Jung when he first endeavored to study psychological types, he commented that much of humanity is somewhat undeveloped.

  25. #25
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Someone that often says "I know better then you" might value it and may even be strong in Te. This of course, may not be true, but it still shows confidence.
    Or equally trying to bluster with their PoLR.

    "Nobody can possibly criticize me! Look at how good I am!"

  26. #26
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulanzon View Post
    Or equally trying to bluster with their PoLR.

    "Nobody can possibly criticize me! Look at how good I am!"
    Ah, but the subtle difference in verbalization is there.

    "I know better then you" considers an audience.

    "I'm totally certain of my knowledge" considers only oneself.

    And will be interpreted differently by different types. For one, it's a invitation to a joust, the other, perhaps an attempt to end a line of questioning. The intent of the communication is quite different, as is the possible responses.

    As verbalization is a big part of communication, the automatic and non-automatic interpretations of these sort of differences often determines the positive/negative reactions and form a basis for compatibility.

    Body language, emotional expression, deception of course play a large role in face to face communication, but when we speak naturally, and thoughtfully. We will be heavily using our ego functions.

  27. #27
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulanzon View Post
    Types are not real, because Socionics is only a model of the human mind.

    It's like, are numbers real? No, they're just representations of quantities of physical things.

    EDIT

    And no, maths is not "real" either, it's still a model (or rather, all the little bits and pieces that describe different things are models, but you get my point, I hope?), and still has little glitches here and there where it doesn't match 1:1 with reality. I think.

    I probably dug myself a hole with that analogy. Oh well.

    jxrtes, tag in!
    I see what you mean and agree that socionics has a logic behind it.

    But the logic does not necessarily fit with the reality. In terms of FACTS socionics doesn't seem much more accurate than claiming that your match can be determined by what colors you prefer.

    Socionics says "You test as A then you=A" and "He tests as A? Well then he=A" but you and he are NOT identical. For starters you are simply separate people. You also have different appearance and experiences, too.

    What is worse is some socionists go "Well, yeah, he tests as X, but I think he is really Y!"
    Silliness. Pure silliness. The best thing they have is the test and it fails to satisfy much of the time. So then they do a VI, or a 'consultation'(shuddering with shivers!), but they have no grounds for anything they claim.

    Socionics claims there is some pure core called a "monad" 'in' us and that this monad is unchangeable and there from birth, dictating who and what we become. This is not proven fact.

    Not to say that it won't someday be proven. But this monad idea is related to something that physical science is in opposition to...

    I'll leave it at that.

  28. #28
    ESTj Tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    562
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree that this has the potential to be useful, but I really think there are too many compromising factors for it to work well. Vernacular is far too malleable, as well as being too colloquial. You say words because you hear them often, regardless of what they actually indicate. On top of that, everyone's vision of the subtle nuances of these "give-away" words is twisted by personal insight, which is exactly what we're looking for...

    This can work, but you have to know what the person in question believes those words to mean, what colorings they may have for the individual, etc. What it really boils down to is that while there are agreed upon meanings for words, there aren't agreed upon associations to subtle nuances brought about in personal past.

    If you know which meanings of these words the person focuses on in conversation, rather than the words themselves, you'll be getting somewhere important and telling, but not before.
    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

  29. #29
    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

    Thats more of what i was looking for Allie
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

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

  30. #30
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth View Post

    Socionics says "You test as A then you=A" and "He tests as A? Well then he=A" but you and he are NOT identical. For starters you are simply separate people.
    this approach doesn't work for social sciences, you have to use some humanistic approach. So if it can't be measured with machines or isn't totally perfect, when humans can measure it, then it's sufficient.

Posting Permissions

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