Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Essential skepticisms and beliefs

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Essential skepticisms and beliefs

    Based on the discussion under the "Socrates" thread and some philosophical observations by Phaedrus, I thought up a way of thinking of the functions in terms of their associated fundamental skepticisms and beliefs.

    This list could probably use some refinement; I would be interested in people's comment.

    Ti:
    Skeptical of objective reality. Skeptical of absolutes, and of moral or aesthetic principles. Believes in the value of systems.

    Ni:
    Skeptical of systems. Believes in "ideal states." Skeptical of the ability to understand the physical world directly; the world of ideas is more real.

    Te:
    Skeptical of anything that can't be clearly demonstrated. Interested in debunking mystics and other "magical" thinkers. Believes in what can be demonstrated rationally.

    Si:
    Skeptical of the value of things other than physical pleasure or activities one enjoys (whether work or play). Believes in one's individual power to experience things in a way that will make everything all right.

    Se:
    Skeptical of what one can't see or experience personally; skeptical of theories. Believes in one's own experience.

    Fi:
    Skeptical of others' intentions. Believes in moral principles.

    Fe:
    Skeptical in the value of things that don't relate to people. Believes that certain priorities and actions can make life meaningful and worthwhile.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh yes, I left out Ne...

    Ne:
    Skeptical of traditional limitations. Believes that all beliefs can be made sense of and reconciled if put in the right perspective.

    Anyhow, that's my shot at it....

  3. #3
    Dmitri Lytov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Absolutely untrue. Each function's description is confusing. For example, skepticism as such is relevant to T function (rather to Te, while indifference is rather peculiar to Ti).
    www.socioniko.net is no longer my site.

  4. #4
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think some of these descriptions are pretty good. But they are not so much descriptions of functions as descriptions of people that have these leading functions.

    1. Ne:
    Skeptical of traditional limitations. Believes that all points of view can be made sense of and reconciled if put in the right perspective.

    Ti I don't really get.
    Te is good.
    Si - first half is good. Second doesn't make much sense.
    Se is pretty good.
    Fi doesn't make sense ("skeptical of other's intentions")
    Fe I don't completely get.

    One way to introduce logical consistency into these "skeptical of..." descriptions is to describe how people are skeptical of things related to their 3rd function. Parts of your Ni, Se, and Fe descriptions reflect this.

    Another way would be to use a formula like "A person is skeptical of things that aren't easily described in terms of one's leading function." Some of your descriptions take this approach.

  5. #5
    Dmitri Lytov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti is not skeptical of objective reality, anyway. Ti is rather full of mistrust to things called "facts". People with the dominant Ti believe that facts can be manipulated, and "correct explanation", "systematic thinking" is much more important than facts themselves. When facts agree with each other - it's a System. When they disagree with each other - it's a Lie.
    www.socioniko.net is no longer my site.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov
    Ti is not skeptical of objective reality, anyway. Ti is rather full of mistrust to things called "facts". People with the dominant Ti believe that facts can be manipulated, and "correct explanation", "systematic thinking" is much more important than facts themselves. When facts agree with each other - it's a System. When they disagree with each other - it's a Lie.
    "When they disagree with each other- it's a LIE." LOL


    Anyway, I also disagree with Si. Si is skeptical of being subjectied to physical harm, i.e. we may fear for our lives when everything is actually ok.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  7. #7
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How can one be skeptical of absolutes AND value systems?
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it seems to me that scepticism is a form of low-energy mentality comparable to anaerobic excercise and need not correlate to any of the types at all. this does not imply tacit acceptance of all processed information.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think some of these descriptions are pretty good. But they are not so much descriptions of functions as descriptions of people that have these leading functions.
    This exactly was my initial reaction, too.

    Ti is rather full of mistrust to things called "facts". People with the dominant Ti believe that facts can be manipulated, and "correct explanation", "systematic thinking" is much more important than facts themselves. When facts agree with each other - it's a System. When they disagree with each other - it's a Lie.
    What you say here, Dmitri Lytov, reminds me of Lenore Thomson's description of Ni at http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...rted_Intuition. (You don't have to log in, just navigate and find "What does Lenore mean by Introverted Intuition?") I would be very interested in what you think of this description. What is a description of really? Is it closer to or is it closer to ?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Both of her Ni and Si descriptions are more like (for Introverts).

    She also changes her definition of Si, for example, from ISxJ to ESxJ. Her ISxJ Si description is actually in socionics, and her ESxJ Si description is in socionics.

    Talked about it here:

    http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2572
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dmitri: skepticism as such is relevant to T function (rather to Te, while indifference is rather peculiar to Ti).
    Yeah, I think that's a good point. I think I demonstrated how easy it is to let type bias creep into how one conceives of other types. A similar thing happened when I was trying to use the question "What one skill do you have that probably exceeds that of anyone else in the room?" to determine what one's dominant function is. An ethical-type person informed me that the question made no sense because she would never even think in such a competitive way.

    What I was trying to do in this "skepticism/belief" idea was to come up with a way of characterising the philosophies of various types by extending Phaedrus's observation that LII philosophers do in fact seem to be skeptical of objective reality. However, maybe they're not skeptical after all; maybe when someone with strong looks at what LIIs have to say, it just appears as skepticism....????? And since most people on forums seem to think I'm ILI, perhaps it's my own bias to assume (rather unskeptically) that the basis of all philosophy is skepticism...????

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Both of her Ni and Si descriptions are more like (for Introverts).

    She also changes her definition of Si, for example, from ISxJ to ESxJ. Her ISxJ Si description is actually in socionics, and her ESxJ Si description is in socionics.
    That's very good, because it seems to be an argument for my hypothesis. And if you read her descriptions of Ti, I think you will see that is actually more like . I have read your article a couple of times before, Rocky, and it's very good and interesting, but I was still a bit disappointed. Why? Because I think you, along with many others, draw the wrong conclusions.

    You didn't accentuate the fact that the two models actually seem to equate much more than most of you are willing to admit. If what you say above about Lenore's descriptions is true, then she is almost describing the same types as in Socionics. Even their functional orderings are the same for the first four functions, if you admit that when she is talking about Ti she is really talking about , and when she's talking about Ni she is really talking about . There is no 100 % match, of course, but pretty much so from what I can see myself, from what you have said, and from what others also have said so far in different threads on this and other forums.

    One thing Dmitri Lytov said in the thread following your article, Rocky, was:

    VERY GOOD CORRELATION exists between:
    INTROVERTED sensing-irrational types in socionics - and ISP types in MBTI.
    INTROVERTED sensing-rational types in socionics - and ISJ types in MBTI.
    That's exactly what I have found myself when comparing many type descriptions of the types in Socionics and MBTT. There was a time when I thought that that was not true for the IN types in the two models, but now they too seem to correlate pretty well. I don't know why it was so difficult for me and others to see the correlation at first. I can only speculate. Maybe it is easier for me to see the correlation i S types because I am not an S type myself, so I can only compare their outer behaviour. When I read descriptions of INTjs and INTps on the other hand, I get tempted to compare their thought processes, which could lead to confusion, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, wishful thinking and whatever.

  13. #13
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bitch, read the date on the posts you're replying to.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  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

    This would be a good topic to spam Anything Goes with
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

Posting Permissions

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