Forms of thinking and presenting like functions.
Is it possible for the different forms of thinking to mislead third-party typers to believing that a certain element is dominant?
Take me. If I'm dealing with something logical or intellectual, I make sure to pick my logical connections (as in, the flow from idea to idea, as opposed to the actual reasoning/logic behind what I'm producing) carefully. Is this a result of dialectal-algorithmic, or is it only Ti HA at work?
You dont have Ti HA lol.
Anyway, of course its possible to deceive someone; but that has more to do with the lack of the third partys socionics knowledge/ability than your thought proccess. Someone knowledgable should be able to see through it
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
At which point ILE makes significantly more sense than ESE. And better yet, that brings you up to being as likely an EIE as I am ESE (which is still possible, on both accounts). I'm amazed you haven't picked up the fundamental similarities we, and other XEIs (crazedrat and kam spring to mind here), share in terms of how we deal with Ti, and equally, how EXEs are not like the XEIs in that regard in the least. (Well, Gilly is pretty clever, actually.)Originally Posted by thePirate
This is all irrelevant to the topic at hand, however. If you really want to debate my type, please clarify what would comprise a satisfactory argument for you. I'll make a thread for you.
It isn't about deception. I'm wondering if forms of thinking can resemble particular functions. It's a pretty mundane question because there's a bunch of half-formed ideas related to it that I'm not quite able to get my finger on, so I was hoping to get some discussion flowing for the sake of interest.
The implicit question then is, does form of thinking influence how you use your functions? This is a simple question of knowledge.
hmm
I havent paid attention enough to those particular posters, or really myself in these terms(dealing with Ti). I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter as it does sound interesting - comparing and contrasting Fe creatives with dominants, if you would so take the time..
as for your question, I think it can but I would have to think about it a little more
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
I'm having a little trouble with this one, actually. Bear with me at any rate.
On the one hand, you have Ti DS (and probably specifically Ti DS/Ne HA) leading in most cases to very unclear communication, due to omitting logical steps in the middle of a train of thought, since Ti DS leads one to assume that their reasoning/Ti is self-evident (my understanding is that types tend to assume their DS is self-evident).
On the other, Ti HA and Ne DS seems to lead to a meticulous focus on internal consistency, while neglecting to actually make a point. This is a serious issue I run into attempting to explain any logical system to someone, since I get bogged down in all the structural intricacies without explaining what on earth the system is, or can produce volumes of observations, comments, and information without any clear point to it. If you want someone else to look at for this, I think Cyclops manifests the Pointless Commentary Syndrome from time to time, too.
As for Ti HAs, you'll notice them on the forums being rather exacting in their demands for reasoning, not out of helplessness and lack of understanding, but out of desire for debate because they are confident their reasoning is valid (or the others is invalid or absent). The HA can be used more liberally, aptly, or confidently than the DS (which can be used in the latter two ways if the individual is sufficiently dualised, from my understanding; though it will always be more careful than liberal), so types can sort of brandish it about.
I'd give you an example of Ne HA being used in this manner by one of my friends, but it's floating just on the tip of my tongue, and I can't quite pin it down, unfortunately.
As a side-note, something that occurred to me is that your HA has the same attitude (extraversion/introversion) as your base function, which is probably what makes it easier to use. This is just idle conjecture, though, so feel free to ignore.
It'll be interesting to hear your thoughts
If you mean Gulenko's Forms of Thinking (cause-effect, dialectical-algorithmic, holographic and vortex), these aren't easily directly connected to functions, and are derived from observation rather than "mathematical calculations", i.e., aren't a speculation but an explanation (see the introduction to the article). LIIs use holographic while LSIs use cause-effect, ESI again holographic etc. SEIs, EIEs, ILIs and LSEs use dialectial-algorithmic, which I understand to be like dealing with parallel lines of probabilities, allowing for all to be 'somehow' true until it all intertwines to produce a result, or branching it at choices which are yet undetermined. In this way the comparison to quantum physics, though criticized by both smilingeyes and Phaedrus, works for me. Dialectical-algorithmic compared to cause-effect is like non-deterministic automat to a deterministic one (the analogy may be flawed, but I have no idea for a better one at the moment).
Mistaking it for functions is possible, I'd say. Especially holographic thinking, which involves looking at the issue from different angles, might be often related to Ne, while one of the types using it is ESI, so Ne-PoLR.
I don't think these are useful in typing, at least not as long as we only have an article with several people commenting on it. Some more people confirmed they more or less fit the style of thinking described, but it's still unreliable and very introspective. If I learned of it some time ago, when I was practising holographic thinking (not related to socionics, I wasn't even aware of the theory at the time), I'm not sure if I wouldn't have thought I'm using it. That's another point; you can understand other styles and try to work with them, although I'm not sure if you'd be actually using them or simulating them with your own preferred style. This is something that makes it less useful in typing.
ETA:
One thing not to be forgotten about super-id is that it's actually weak and unconscious. Another is that the reason why HA tends to be emphasized and hard to argue with is because of PoLR. Ti-HA tends to hold strong opinions, and maybe is confident of the validity of their reasoning, but it does it mostly so because of very weak ability to assess evidence (Te-PoLR) and therefore holds the opinion above it, even if it was based on unreliable evidence in the first place, accepting no arguments but Ti-reasoning. Similarly, all HAs and PoLRs are connected, leading to HA's unconscious manifestation.On the one hand, you have Ti DS (and probably specifically Ti DS/Ne HA) leading in most cases to very unclear communication, due to omitting logical steps in the middle of a train of thought, since Ti DS leads one to assume that their reasoning/Ti is self-evident (my understanding is that types tend to assume their DS is self-evident).
On the other, Ti HA and Ne DS seems to lead to a meticulous focus on internal consistency, while neglecting to actually make a point. This is a serious issue I run into attempting to explain any logical system to someone, since I get bogged down in all the structural intricacies without explaining what on earth the system is, or can produce volumes of observations, comments, and information without any clear point to it. If you want someone else to look at for this, I think Cyclops manifests the Pointless Commentary Syndrome from time to time, too.
As for Ti HAs, you'll notice them on the forums being rather exacting in their demands for reasoning, not out of helplessness and lack of understanding, but out of desire for debate because they are confident their reasoning is valid (or the others is invalid or absent). The HA can be used more liberally, aptly, or confidently than the DS (which can be used in the latter two ways if the individual is sufficiently dualised, from my understanding; though it will always be more careful than liberal), so types can sort of brandish it about.
I disagree with Ti-DS/Ne-HA assuming reasoning is self-evident and omitting steps - from what I've seen in ESE they tend to rarely omit a detail, even if it's irrelevant or obvious, avoid taking shortcuts. Then again, this type uses vortex thinking, so if that theory works, they might be thinking this way but presenting it to the world in different (more detailed) form.
Last edited by Aiss; 05-11-2010 at 08:34 AM.
This is weird. The two ESEs I'm thinking of have this remarkable ability to confuse the hell out of me because they leave huge gaps in what they communicate.
Something that happened recently with my ESE friend was a discussion sort of like this:
ESE: "Are we playing WoW tonight?"
[In ESE, he's saying "If the third member of party isn't logging, are you and I playing tonight?"
I mistranslate this into Brianese as "Is the third member logging on tonight?"]
Me: "Not sure if she's making it on tonight."
[Brianese question is answered, so I wander off and stop talking. Meanwhile ESE-ese question is left un-answered. Some time elapses.]
ESE: <beginning of an angry rant about how unreliable we all are and how he's not renewing his sub>
Ok, actually, this seems a lot like two Ethicals blundering around unable to clarify what they're trying to say. I've run into this with my EII mother and friend at times too.
Also, an ESE (could be EIE) classmate of mine did the whole "just skip over the logical connections and let the other person figure it out" thing. I can't actually recall what happened too clearly, though, unfortunately. But, the general gist is, she made some really weird association that I missed and had to get her to go back and explain.
A question to you, Aiss, that might translate a bit better. Do you see LIEs as acting as if their personal sentiments are self-evident? (I'm not sure if I got this one right, actually; I'm roughly paraphrasing one of the examples an ILE friend of mine gave me (she used LIEs and LSEs; and then I extended the pattern to ESEs and SEIs for my post))
Well, here it seems there are two separate questions: forms of thinking and hidden agenda/dual seeking. I'll just consider the first one. Being introverted, negativist and democratic will give you (not "you" Brian, an impersonal "you") the most pessimistic personality among the socion. Which could easily be perceived as being analytical and/or logical and/or punctilious. Since these types possess either holographic or algorithmic form of thinking, then I would answer that they might render a SEI more strictly logical than a LIE and/or an ESI more punctilious about details than an ILE. Which, from the outside, might lead to mistyping towardsego block for the SEI and/or
ego block for the ESI. Yet this is true only insfar as people assume that
or
leading and creative should manifest in exactly the same fashion; if accurate distinctions are made, then the issue ceases to exist.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
There are two separate issues: whether I see them and whether there are self-evident. To be quite honest, if anything Feeling-related seems self-evident to me, I'm inclined to question the accuracy of an observation. This being said, LIEs' 'favoritism' (something which apparently Alphas see Gammas as doing) seems more consistent than ILIs', which I've been told is confusing to Fe-valuers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote