Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The Nature of Perceiving and Judging Functions

  1. #1
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The Nature of Perceiving and Judging Functions

    Put simply, the Perceiving* functions can be thought of as "What is", and the Judging functions as "What ought to be". But why is this? After all, both Judging and Perceiving IEs are simple combinations of Internal/External, Static/Dynamic, and Objects/Fields. So why are Ni and Si paired with Ne and Se? What is it about that specific combination that can be called "What is", and what is it about Ti, Fi, Te, and Fe that can be considered "What ought to be"?

    After much thought, I have come to the following simple conclusion:

    Perceiving consists of Statics of Objects and Dynamics of Fields. For Perceiving, the objects out in the real world are fixed and unchangeable, and the connections and relationships between them are malleable. This leads to a feeling of "I'm exploring the way the world really is, and changing how I relate to it accordingly."

    Judging consists of Dynamics of Objects and Statics of Fields. For Judging, it's the connections between things that are fixed and unchangeable; the objects in the "real world" are what can be changed and manipulated. This leads to a feeling of "I know how things should relate to one another, and now I'm going to change the way the world is accordingly."

    Thoughts? Questions? Criticisms?

    [*Note: I'm using the terms "Perceiving" and "Judging" here instead of "Irrational" and "Rational", because the former describe the specific difference I'm talking about more clearly in this case.]
    Quaero Veritas.

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not partial to the view that information metabolism factors in "oughts" on any level, myself. Just FTR.

  3. #3
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Put simply, the Perceiving* functions can be thought of as "What is", and the Judging functions as "What ought to be". But why is this? After all, both Judging and Perceiving IEs are simple combinations of Internal/External, Static/Dynamic, and Objects/Fields. So why are Ni and Si paired with Ne and Se? What is it about that specific combination that can be called "What is", and what is it about Ti, Fi, Te, and Fe that can be considered "What ought to be"?

    After much thought, I have come to the following simple conclusion:

    Perceiving consists of Statics of Objects and Dynamics of Fields. For Perceiving, the objects out in the real world are fixed and unchangeable, and the connections and relationships between them are malleable. This leads to a feeling of "I'm exploring the way the world really is, and changing how I relate to it accordingly."

    Judging consists of Dynamics of Objects and Statics of Fields. For Judging, it's the connections between things that are fixed and unchangeable; the objects in the "real world" are what can be changed and manipulated. This leads to a feeling of "I know how things should relate to one another, and now I'm going to change the way the world is accordingly."

    Thoughts? Questions? Criticisms?

    [*Note: I'm using the terms "Perceiving" and "Judging" here instead of "Irrational" and "Rational", because the former describe the specific difference I'm talking about more clearly in this case.]
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  4. #4
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Percieving is more "what is" judging is more "how/why is," though the interesting thing about perceiving is you can come to "how/why" something is without posing the question in the first place, and the opposite is contained within natural process of judging. You can call these essential bonuses the "creative" processes.

  5. #5
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Put simply, the Perceiving* functions can be thought of as "What is", and the Judging functions as "What ought to be". But why is this? After all, both Judging and Perceiving IEs are simple combinations of Internal/External, Static/Dynamic, and Objects/Fields. So why are Ni and Si paired with Ne and Se? What is it about that specific combination that can be called "What is", and what is it about Ti, Fi, Te, and Fe that can be considered "What ought to be"?

    After much thought, I have come to the following simple conclusion:

    Perceiving consists of Statics of Objects and Dynamics of Fields. For Perceiving, the objects out in the real world are fixed and unchangeable, and the connections and relationships between them are malleable. This leads to a feeling of "I'm exploring the way the world really is, and changing how I relate to it accordingly."

    Judging consists of Dynamics of Objects and Statics of Fields. For Judging, it's the connections between things that are fixed and unchangeable; the objects in the "real world" are what can be changed and manipulated. This leads to a feeling of "I know how things should relate to one another, and now I'm going to change the way the world is accordingly."

    Thoughts? Questions? Criticisms?

    [*Note: I'm using the terms "Perceiving" and "Judging" here instead of "Irrational" and "Rational", because the former describe the specific difference I'm talking about more clearly in this case.]
    Good one, Krig.

    The next step would probably be fields/bodies difference... extroverts are said to be more active in changing the world. Yet it also seems to be a common perception - and in line with what you say here - that Ep is more into "experimenting" and Ej more into actual "reshaping". Ep, on their own, seem to be "exploring the way it really is" and confronting it with secondary framework of "I know how it should be", in your words. That's why they need input from dual-seeking function to be fulfilled - to help them "change how they relate to it", instead. Ej would need support with deciding "how the world should be" rather than changing it on a whimsical "how I relate to it" basis, Ip with exploring it how it really is and Ij with being able to inflict change.

    I like the "change how I relate to it" aspect of Pi here. While it may not be encompassing of the whole nature of introverted perception, it makes sense in many ways.

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think logic has anything to do with determining what "ought to be", nor that inferring the emotional state of a person or paying attention to empirical factuality is a normative process.

  7. #7
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's an interesting way of thinking about it. I've always thought of Rational functions as the functions that view the world as being comprised of pieces that need to be put together, and Irrational functions seeing the world as immutable wholes. Extroverted Dynamics, or "changes in the world outside myself," are seen as pieces that need to be managed, controlled, etc, so as to maintain order, while Introverted Statics, or "the permanent parts of myself," is the self, and the relation of the self to the "field," as being seen as a set of pieces that must be kept together, in order. Conversely, Extroverted Statics see the things outside the self as Static: permanent, unchangeable, and thus interacts with them as they are, while Introverted Dynamics see the self and its relation to the external world as constantly evolving, that it "will be whatever it is."
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  8. #8
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  9. #9
    The Greeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    602
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Krig the Viking, I was going to voice a slight disagreement with your analysis, until I saw this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    [*Note: I'm using the terms "Perceiving" and "Judging" here instead of "Irrational" and "Rational", because the former describe the specific difference I'm talking about more clearly in this case.]
    Now, I completely agree with your analysis.

    I will say that I think that perceiving and judging are a derivative of the more fundamental irrational/rational dichotomy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton
    Haven't we been over this topic a billion times? Stop reinventing the wheel already. Everyone talks endlessly out of their ass about theory, theory, theory. Over and over again. Other people (Jung, Aushra, etc.) already figured this shit out well enough decades before most of us were born. Let's do something more constructive for a change.
    Which direction would you have us go? Or we ought to go?
    Ceci n'est pas une eii.




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

    Default

    I don't think this is true really. All perceptions are true. All information has truth to it, no matter how cut off from the current reality it seems like at the time. It's about how information is metabolized. What sort of information gives you energy, and what deflates and disempowers you? When it all comes down to it, we all kinda want the same things.

    Food/shelter
    Fun and belonging
    safety and security
    self-actualization

    and there are a few other shit. I don't think this is a pyramid though, like how Maslow put it. Like I think you can still have fun even if you're not secure. So I think he was being too soft and faggy mama boys over-institutionalized with that.

  11. #11
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Can't say I'm for or against OP, but for me as a bloody software coder, I find it very convenient to see it from a "cybernetic" point of view, ie. human described as a black box information processor (what information metabolism is about after all...)

    Perception = Irrational = input
    Judging = Rational = output

    Sensing is a very low latency input, as instantaneous as our sensing organs and five senses go (on the millisecond order approx. or sometimes a bit more depending on the particular sense you're looking at, if I recall the physiological studies data correctly, but eye->brain and ear->brain paths have known but non-constant operating latency for example, depending on energy level and focus...but there's an operating range nonetheless)

    Intuition is a higher latency one (ie it takes more time to extract pattern/trends/alternatives/shemas/links data out of the external world, meaning for instance even as a Ni leading type, when I enter a new room I get Se data first, but it's "weighted" less in the input summation, and soon Ni takes over as the main information layer I extract, giving me the "steping back" or "camera elevation" effect on the current scene, and frequently interrupted by Se "reality flashes")

    So the black box has 4 inputs, each with a "preference coefficient" (aka weight) all working in parallel, with the Ni/Se and Ne/Si interuptions/disruptions/couplings described taking place many times per second. Like a fast switching router somehow...packet commutation hehe

    What's outputted depends on how talkative the person is, but most of the time, we keep the judgment/conclusion/rationalization inside for ourselves, and it rolls and bounces until consumed or discarded in the shadow...

    (Yeah I know where I should stuff my shadow, thank you!)
    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rational just deals with distinctions, articulations as to how two entities differ from one another. Irrational deals with the entities themselves.

    Both are ontological categories. Both have the same function in the model. Rational/Irrational is probably the most important dichotomy in socionics, but all these stories about how they signify completely different stages in the cognitive process are just way off base. At best you can say that Rational is predicated on Irrational due to how any distinction must necessarily deal with a set of entities, while pointing at an entity on it's own does not necessarily need to involve articulated distinctions (not even strictly true, though; our understanding of entities always results from their comparison to other entities).

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Old thread.

    I need to read up on static/dynamic etc.

    For myself, I've just thought eg Ne pairs with Si etc because when Jung spoke about eg Ne, at it's worst a foreboding Si manifests. So why not have an Si type to correct it? Well actually it probably doesn't explain everything, but it works. It's like their not really in opposition to each other but want to co-exist. Well I should read up more and post some more explanatory stuff, I suppose the Ti in socionics does that already.

    Edit: it shows not everyone needs their dual, if their functions don't get to that stage.

  14. #14
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Rational just deals with distinctions, articulations as to how two entities differ from one another. Irrational deals with the entities themselves.

    Both are ontological categories. Both have the same function in the model. Rational/Irrational is probably the most important dichotomy in socionics, but all these stories about how they signify completely different stages in the cognitive process are just way off base. At best you can say that Rational is predicated on Irrational due to how any distinction must necessarily deal with a set of entities, while pointing at an entity on it's own does not necessarily need to involve articulated distinctions (not even strictly true, though; our understanding of entities always results from their comparison to other entities).
    Does that imply that you dismiss my views altogether?

    They tend to be on tune with information metabolism (Kepinsky and Augusta) as seen for instance in this wikipedia quote:

    "his theory of information metabolism is built upon an analogy to biological metabolism. According to this analogy, information that arrives as signals from outside an organism are available for information metabolism just as food is available for energy metabolism. The brain is the key information metabolism system. The brain and information metabolism deal with a two-way flow of signals: metabolism of input signals results in the production of output."

    What you say about function pairings is something that is unanimously criticized in nearly all stereotype descriptions online, that is functional breakdowns for N or S always include elements of F or T and they shouldn't as N or S extract data but don't come to any conclusion by themselves.

    For instance it's clear when I read all IEI function descriptions, it's always either the Ni -> Fe I/O path described, or the Ni -> Ti I/O path, or the Se -> Fe and Se -> Ti ones...

    I agree that in reality, it's all so fast and tightly coupled it's pretty hard to distinguish inputs and outputs and functions never work alone. There are the couplings many people described here. But and there is a but, in my current analysis to advance the MBTI conversion consensus issue, what people criticized the most in MBTI functional breakdowns is just that: one function description always include bits of another etc...so they appear "skewed" etc. But I got the impression it's exactly the same in socionics, and unless I understand you incorrectly, you seem to say it should be this way...

    I find the I/O black box concept way more elegant, more close to Kepinski's and other cybernetists views...and well it just rings my bell as a digital signal processing systems designer and developer! I fail to see even if we exclude intuition completely to simplify, how the 5 senses could be seen as something different that *inputs*? Ear -> brain is a one-way path, your ears don't produce sound, eye -> brain idem, skin -> brain idem, nose -> brain idem, tongue -> brain idem...

    Of course you could answer that Sensing is more than that, in the sense it extract semantic data on top of instantaneous sensory data, but unless this data is processed logically or ethically it's useless in itself, except for animal survival situations where you can have reflex and gut reactions almost bypassing your conscious brain.

    I don't want to sound too assertive, I just adjust to your tone.
    Last edited by KeroZen; 12-14-2010 at 11:52 PM. Reason: typos
    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

  15. #15
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Rational just deals with distinctions, articulations as to how two entities differ from one another. Irrational deals with the entities themselves.

    Both are ontological categories. Both have the same function in the model. Rational/Irrational is probably the most important dichotomy in socionics, but all these stories about how they signify completely different stages in the cognitive process are just way off base. At best you can say that Rational is predicated on Irrational due to how any distinction must necessarily deal with a set of entities, while pointing at an entity on it's own does not necessarily need to involve articulated distinctions (not even strictly true, though; our understanding of entities always results from their comparison to other entities).
    I agree.
    One of my duals once pointed out to me that while he takes two things and compares them for their features like take a car and a human, he looks for eyes-headlights...shape...of course with Si here...but he said that I look for things along a line; for example I think in order of Ti...once something is learned I make a list to clearify it's content and how something else can be compared to those criterion. We are different because he thinks on the metaphoric relations and I in metamymic, but both are under judging.

Posting Permissions

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