Theoretical vs speculative

[krieger]

People tend to mix these concepts up a lot despite that they don't neccessitate eachother. A decision or statement can be theoretical yet be based on certainties (the field of mathematics is an example) and a statement can be speculative yet concern only real scenarios that have occurred before and/or aren't in any way dubious as to the real possibility of coming about.

So what does the difference consist in?

I think a pretty obvious possibility would be:
Theoretical: Ne
Speculative: Ni

Is it this simple? Can we confirm, for example, that Ne types dislike speculation despite that they like theory?

I think I can confirm this last thing as far as I myself am concerned. As a Civ IV player I always hate it when people advise me to "settle in place, I've got a hunch that grassland tile has a hidden copper resource on it". Speculative typings in socionics tend to annoy me, too ("person X has oval eyes, I think she may be INFp"). And it's not a secret that Gamma NTs feel a lot more at home in bussiness than Alpha NTs do. I tried to study up on stock dynamics a while ago but decided that finding one's way among all the randomness was a pointless task, at least for someone of my dispositions.

How do we further clarify and describe the difference between the two?

I think:
A theoretical statement is an asserted possiblity as to how something might work apart from being proven to work that way. A speculative statement is an asserted possiblitiy as to what might be the case.

Notice I use "theoretical" in the collquial sense here. In science, "theory" implies proof, but this usage is very uncommon in ordinary speech.

[Jarno]

I've read that 'speculative' is associated with Ti

[FDG]

It's not easy to create such an association, because speculative has a negative connotation which theorethical lacks.

[Brilliand]

I think "speculative" things mature into "theoretical" things, so they go together...

I've read that 'speculative' is associated with Ti

Aren't s prone to such speculation, though?

[FDG]

I think "speculative" things mature into "theoretical" things, so they go together...

Well, if their nature contains examples such as the one posted by labcoat, then not necessarily.

[The Greeter]

It's not easy to create such an association, because speculative has a negative connotation which theorethical lacks.

Connotation aside, I think there is some truth to it.

For example, a few Ni-egos of the forum stated that an advantage of Ni over Si is that Ni can work with little information and still come to some sort of conclusion; where Si is seemingly incapable of functioning properly if things are not detailed to their satisfaction. I don't disagree with the advantage they describe. Albeit, these were mainly Betas.

On the other hand, I can see this extending to Gamma as well, but their speculations usually have a more concrete basis (ie. Te versus Fe).

[krieger]

I've read that 'speculative' is associated with Ti

What about speculating stock brokers? They're not typically IxTjs, are they?

I think speculation may also be related to Extroversion + Intuition (combined these make the intuitive function Empowering, although this is not neccessary for a good defense of the point).

[Jarno]

What about speculating stock brokers? They're not typically IxTjs, are they?

Well this type of speculation is different then I meant. I meant in making speculative hypothesis which is common for Ti. But I'll look up where the info comes from, I think wikisocion...

But just for the record, there are two kinds of stock brokers, market timers (speculators) and value investors (long term non speculator). Warren Buffet INTP is a value investor. An ISTJ friend of mine is proud to call himself market timer. Whether this is a trend I don't know.

[717495]

I agree that static elements are based more on certainties, or rather "established truth or reason," which is why they don't have this whole continually developing perception and trial going of the caliber that dynamic elements have, so from there I would agree with much of that association.

[Krig the Viking]

I think I understand what you're saying, labcoat.

Ne, a static element, deals with the underlying nature of things.
Ni, a dynamic element, deals with the overall direction in which events are headed.

So in the "person X has oval eyes, I think she may be INFp" example, what Ni is really saying is "I perceive a trend that people with oval eyes have so far turned out to be INFp, and person X has oval eyes, so I think she may turn out to be INFp". The "direction in which things are going" is "toward INFp".

Whereas Ne, trying to see the underlying nature of oval eyes, is unaware of such a trend. Ne combined with Ti might say "X% of people in the category 'oval eyes' overlap with Y% of people in the category 'INFp', therefore the correlation is strong."

[Kaze]

I'd associate correlating a type with an oval face as "fucking retarded".

Of course, I'm just speculating myself with that assessment. I don't care to disprove it. I prefer ridicule.


Umm, which type has an oval face anyways? I have one, but still don't know what my type is exactly.

[edit] Oops! Oval eyes, I mean. Hmm, well I have those too.

[Aiss]

I'd associate correlating a type with an oval face as "fucking retarded".

Of course, I'm just speculating myself with that assessment. I don't care to disprove it. I prefer ridicule.


Umm, which type has an oval face anyways? I have one, but still don't know what my type is exactly.

Ask JohnDo, it seems to be his hobby.

[Kaze]

Ask JohnDo, it seems to be his hobby.

Eh. I generally lean towards speculative thinking myself (well, depending on the subject, that is), but the whole VI thing is too much to swallow. I can't find any sources or metholodies on it other than people in threads around here declaring something, and not doing much else but being obstinant and vague about the whole thing when others question them. At the very least, fucking make up some consistent metholodies or something

[Aiss]

Eh. I generally lean towards speculative thinking myself, but the whole VI thing is too much to swallow. I can't find any sources or metholodies on it other than people in threads around here declaring something, and not doing much else but being obstinant and vague about the whole thing when others question them. At the very least, fucking make up some consistent metholodies or something

I agree about VI.

John's methodology is actually consistent, and he self-types as LII. I don't agree with facial shapes significance, but whatever.

[Blaze]

People tend to mix these concepts up a lot despite that they don't neccessitate eachother. A decision or statement can be theoretical yet be based on certainties (the field of mathematics is an example) and a statement can be speculative yet concern only real scenarios that have occurred before and/or aren't in any way dubious as to the real possibility of coming about.

So what does the difference consist in?

I think a pretty obvious possibility would be:
Theoretical: Ne
Speculative: Ni

Is it this simple? Can we confirm, for example, that Ne types dislike speculation despite that they like theory?

I think I can confirm this last thing as far as I myself am concerned. As a Civ IV player I always hate it when people advise me to "settle in place, I've got a hunch that grassland tile has a hidden copper resource on it". Speculative typings in socionics tend to annoy me, too ("person X has oval eyes, I think she may be INFp"). And it's not a secret that Gamma NTs feel a lot more at home in bussiness than Alpha NTs do. I tried to study up on stock dynamics a while ago but decided that finding one's way among all the randomness was a pointless task, at least for someone of my dispositions.

How do we further clarify and describe the difference between the two?

I think:
A theoretical statement is an asserted possiblity as to how something might work apart from being proven to work that way. A speculative statement is an asserted possiblitiy as to what might be the case.

Notice I use "theoretical" in the collquial sense here. In science, "theory" implies proof, but this usage is very uncommon in ordinary speech.

interesting. i don't disagree, but i'm not sure if i completely agree either.

i think this may reflect TiNe way of looking at things a little more than NeTi, since i tend to speculate quite a bit, in the realm of brainstorming with Ne. so i might notice some correlations or similarities between objects or people, and then want to extrapolate to a larger conclusion or theory, to see if it's right. i might say, i've noticed that several EIE's i know tend to do this or that, i wonder if this is temperament related or leading function related.

what you are talking about seems to be Ti leading with Ne supporting vs Ni leading with something else supporting.

Ne, a static element, deals with the underlying nature of things.
Ni, a dynamic element, deals with the overall direction in which events are headed.

what is the difference between a Ti understanding of the nature of things and an Ne understanding of the nature of things?

[silverchris9]

I think I understand what you're saying, labcoat.

Ne, a static element, deals with the underlying nature of things.
Ni, a dynamic element, deals with the overall direction in which events are headed.

With the explanation you added, I think that this makes sense, but I have to say, as an Ni-ego, I would of course say that Ni does deal with the underlying "nature of things" (which sounds and feels more central), and that Ne deals with something more peripheral (peripheral because it is external, and I wouldn't be an Ni-valuer if I didn't think that introverted intuition is more important than extroverted intuition, right? Actually, not right, that's a bit of a thorny question, but w/e.).

Anyway, I don't really think that speculative and theoretical have such concrete definitions, but I suppose if Se can be effectiveness and Te can be optimization/efficiency, Ni can be speculative and Ne can be theoretical. I think it would be more accurate to say that alphas are theoretical (if by theoretical we mean "tending to find a model that explains occurrences"), and betas, especially beta NFs are more speculative (if by speculative we mean, "tending to posit possible models of how change will occur.")

But I've found in socionics, we're normally just taking the long way home, to see home for the first time. Because all this is really explained and encapsulated in the terms "static" and "dynamic". Alpha NTs, with two static elements in their ego, are inclined to make models that don't change. They want to view processes in 3D, if you will. Beta NFs, with two dynamic elements in their ego, are inclined to make models of change. They want to view processes in 4D.

Anyway, as another explication or analogy or attempt to convey a truth, what do you guys think of Ti as function, Ni as derivative? I think it both conveys the sense that Ti (as an external function) is closer to the object (vs. Ni, which is more removed from the object), and that Ti is concerned with an unchanging formula for how it works, what outputs come from what inputs, while Ni is concerned with a formula for how it changes, a formula that itself is subject to change. Maybe this doesn't work, but do you guys see where I'm going with this?

So in the "person X has oval eyes, I think she may be INFp" example, what Ni is really saying is "I perceive a trend that people with oval eyes have so far turned out to be INFp, and person X has oval eyes, so I think she may turn out to be INFp". The "direction in which things are going" is "toward INFp".

Whereas Ne, trying to see the underlying nature of oval eyes, is unaware of such a trend. Ne combined with Ti might say "X% of people in the category 'oval eyes' overlap with Y% of people in the category 'INFp', therefore the correlation is strong."

Exactly. This is an example of good socionics: same information input, same conclusion output, different ways of going about it. The "Ni way" and the "Ti way" produced the exact same conclusion, but they went about the process in a different way, which was then manifested in how the conclusion was expressed.

[tcaudilllg]

Delta Ne is speculative. Theory is Ne and Ti together. Potentials rely on each other to become possible... you've got to have this potential permitted by this potential, by this potential, etc. X1 is possible only if X2 is possible, X2 is possible only if X3 is possible, and so on. At every level there must be an motivation which is grounded on an emotion. Without a motivation, nothing is possible. A speculation, hence, is a possibility for which we are uncertain there exists an attendant motive.

[MatthewZ]

Perhaps strength or skill in a given IE determines Theoretical vs. Speculative rather than it being the result of different IEs?

[The Exception]

I'd associate correlating a type with an oval face as "fucking retarded".

Of course, I'm just speculating myself with that assessment. I don't care to disprove it. I prefer ridicule.


Umm, which type has an oval face anyways? I have one, but still don't know what my type is exactly.

.

JohnDo uses face shape to primarily detect subtypes not so much base types. And yeah, its pretty retarded to assume everyone of the same face shape has the same subtype.

[Krig the Viking]

what is the difference between a Ti understanding of the nature of things and an Ne understanding of the nature of things?

Here's how I would phrase it:

Ne, a static object element, deals with the underlying implicit nature of things.
Se, a object element, deals with the clearly explicit nature of things.
Ti, a static field element, deals with the clearly-defined impartial and logical categorization of things.
Fi, a static field element, deals with the implicit personal and ethical categorization of things.

"Things" here being interchangeable with "objects".

Hence:

NeTi seeks out the underlying implicit nature of things by categorizing them impartially and logically.
TiNe impartially and logically categorizes the world by examining the underlying implicit nature of things.

NeFi seeks out the underlying implicit nature of things by categorizing them personally and ethically.
FiNe categorizes the world personally and ethically by examining the underlying implicit nature of things.

SeTi seeks out the clearly explicit nature of things by categorizing them impartially and logically.
TiSe impartially and logically categorizes the world by examining the clearly explicit nature of things.

SeFi seeks out the clearly explicit nature of things by categorizing them personally and ethically.
FiSe categorizes the world personally and ethically by examining the clearly explicit nature of things.

With the explanation you added, I think that this makes sense, but I have to say, as an Ni-ego, I would of course say that Ni does deal with the underlying "nature of things" (which sounds and feels more central), and that Ne deals with something more peripheral (peripheral because it is external, and I wouldn't be an Ni-valuer if I didn't think that introverted intuition is more important than extroverted intuition, right? Actually, not right, that's a bit of a thorny question, but w/e.).

As I said above, I was associating "thing" with "objects", but given your input, perhaps a better way to phrase it would be:

Ni, a dynamic element, deals with the categorization of the underlying implicit nature and long-term direction of events.

Heck, while we're at it, why don't we finish off the socion here:

Ni, a dynamic field element, deals with the categorization of the underlying implicit nature and long-term direction of events.
Si, a dynamic field element, deals with the categorization of the clearly explicit nature and short-term direction of events.
Fe, a dynamic object element, deals with the implicit personal and emotional activity of things.
Te, a dynamic object element, deals with the clearly-defined impartial and measurable activity of things.

(Note that Ni's "long term direction" and Si's "short-term direction" are consequences of the fact that Si studies the clearly explicit nature of events, while Ni studies the underlying implicit nature of events. The short-term direction of a thing is clear and explicit, while the long-term direction of a thing is implicit and "underlying".)

(Also note that all Introverted/Field elements engage in some form of categorization. Usually only Ti is associated with categorization, because its categories are explicit and static and therefore easily definable. The Dynamic Introverted elements are not easily recognized as being a form of categorization, because dynamic properties can change states so quickly that their categorization frequently changes.)

Hence:

NiFe categorizes the underlying implicit nature and long-term direction of events by observing the implicit personal and emotional activity of things.
FeNi seeks out the implicit personal and emotional activity of things by categorizing the underlying implicit nature and long-term direction of events.

SiFe categorizes the clearly explicit nature and short-term direction of events by observing the implicit personal and emotional activity of things.
FeSi seeks out the implicit personal and emotional activity of things by categorizing the clearly explicit nature and direction of events.

NiTe categorizes the underlying implicit nature and direction of events by observing the clearly-defined impartial and measurable activity of things.
TeNi seeks out the clearly-defined impartial and measurable activity of things by categorizing the underlying implicit nature and direction of events.

SiTe categorizes the clearly explicit nature and direction of events by observing the clearly-defined impartial and measurable activity of things.
TeSi seeks out the clearly-defined impartial and measurable activity of things by categorizing the clearly explicit nature and direction of events.

If anyone can improve the clarity of wording of these, I welcome their input.

[JohnDo]

I'd associate correlating a type with an oval face as "fucking retarded".
Umm, which type has an oval face anyways? I have one, but still don't know what my type is exactly.

People of all types can have oval faces. Shape of face depends on subtype, believe it or not...

Ask JohnDo, it seems to be his hobby.

Socionics is my most important hobby, indeed. I'm even thinking of making it my profession...

Eh. I generally lean towards speculative thinking myself (well, depending on the subject, that is), but the whole VI thing is too much to swallow.

V.I. just needs months and years to master. As long as you don't even know your own type - just forget about V.I...

I can't find any sources or metholodies on it other than people in threads around here declaring something, and not doing much else but being obstinant and vague about the whole thing when others question them.

According to Sergei Ganin it is just an intuitive method of typing so it won't be possible to declare anything. Partially he is right, there will never be objective V.I. criteria for the 16 main types. But I'm still trying to standardize V.I. for subtypes and I actually found a very interesting pattern which will certainly be an acknowledged typing method in the future...

At the very least, fucking make up some consistent metholodies or something

Yeah, I'm working on it. The only thing that can be done to make V.I. more reliable is a benchmark list with pictures of all 16*8*2 = 256 types....
(16 main types, 8 subtypes, 2 genders -> 256 types)

JohnDo uses face shape to primarily detect subtypes not so much base types. And yeah, its pretty retarded to assume everyone of the same face shape has the same subtype.

It is not an assumption but an observation. I typed dozens of people and the pattern I discovered appears everywhere. If you can't confirm that observation you are either bad at typing or not familiar with subtype systems or mentally retarded. Why should it be retarded to type people and look for patterns?! :grr:

[Aiss]

Ni, a dynamic element, deals with the categorization of the underlying implicit nature and long-term direction of events.

Heck, while we're at it, why don't we finish off the socion here:

Ni, a dynamic field element, deals with the categorization of the underlying implicit nature and long-term direction of events.
Si, a dynamic field element, deals with the categorization of the clearly explicit nature and short-term direction of events.
Fe, a dynamic object element, deals with the implicit personal and emotional activity of things.
Te, a dynamic object element, deals with the clearly-defined impartial and measurable activity of things.

(Note that Ni's "long term direction" and Si's "short-term direction" are consequences of the fact that Si studies the clearly explicit nature of events, while Ni studies the underlying implicit nature of events. The short-term direction of a thing is clear and explicit, while the long-term direction of a thing is implicit and "underlying".)

(Also note that all Introverted/Field elements engage in some form of categorization. Usually only Ti is associated with categorization, because its categories are explicit and static and therefore easily definable. The Dynamic Introverted elements are not easily recognized as being a form of categorization, because dynamic properties can change states so quickly that their categorization frequently changes.)

Hence:

NiFe categorizes the underlying implicit nature and long-term direction of events by observing the implicit personal and emotional activity of things.
FeNi seeks out the implicit personal and emotional activity of things by categorizing the underlying implicit nature and long-term direction of events.

SiFe categorizes the clearly explicit nature and short-term direction of events by observing the implicit personal and emotional activity of things.
FeSi seeks out the implicit personal and emotional activity of things by categorizing the clearly explicit nature and direction of events.

NiTe categorizes the underlying implicit nature and direction of events by observing the clearly-defined impartial and measurable activity of things.
TeNi seeks out the clearly-defined impartial and measurable activity of things by categorizing the underlying implicit nature and direction of events.

SiTe categorizes the clearly explicit nature and direction of events by observing the clearly-defined impartial and measurable activity of things.
TeSi seeks out the clearly-defined impartial and measurable activity of things by categorizing the clearly explicit nature and direction of events.

If anyone can improve the clarity of wording of these, I welcome their input.

I kind of agree with Ni being long-term and Si short-term (that's also something I noticed in interactions with Alpha SFs), but the categorization thing sounds like Ti trying to explain Ni. It isn't discrete states that just change faster, it's the perception of change or changing perception, however you look at it, what you said doesn't really work. You did something like that earlier, too - in attempting to explain working Ni you imagined it forming a rule (about oval eyes), then apply it. The idea is there but it sounds more Ti the way you put it.

I suppose the world "categorization" doesn't work for me. Why do you have to use it, anyway? You use "seek" and "categorize" to differentiate between extroverted/introverted IEs; I think you could as well apply it to rational and irrational ones. Notice that rational IEs deal with interpretation and irrational with raw perception. Anyway "categorization of the direction events are taking" sound somewhat forced. I would sooner use "seek to understand X by examining/observing Y" in all cases.

* (static) perceives inherent potential in objects. Objects don't tend to change their nature much over time, though new circumstances can reveal hitherto unnoticed aspects of that potentiality.
* (dynamic) perceives internal reactions to external potentiality. Today the possibilities might seem inviting and favorable, but tomorrow they might produce a sense of foreboding or despondency.