Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Deep Secrets of Taciturn/Narrator (Asking/Declaring Reinin Dichotomy)

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Deep Secrets of Taciturn/Narrator (Asking/Declaring Reinin Dichotomy)

    Chat conversation, going from bottom to top.


    14/10/2010 02:30 <labcoat> debatable whether it's more important

    14/10/2010 02:30 <labcoat> Trev it's about on the same level

    14/10/2010 02:30 <Trevor> isn't like P/J the most important when it comes to intertypes

    14/10/2010 02:30 <labcoat> statics and dynamics think in completely different ways... it is the most fundamental divide

    14/10/2010 02:29 <Vero> It also divides the idea of "clubs"

    14/10/2010 02:29 <labcoat> the intertype rule is "quadras get along well" but also "statics complement dynamics"

    14/10/2010 02:29 <Trevor>

    14/10/2010 02:28 <Bionicgoat> i just don't love it

    14/10/2010 02:28 <Bionicgoat> actually i don't hate meatloaf

    14/10/2010 02:28 <Bionicgoat> meatloaf for dinner tonight

    14/10/2010 02:28 <labcoat> trev, it divides quadras up in a way that gives rise to duality

    14/10/2010 02:28 <Bionicgoat> i hate meatloaf

    14/10/2010 02:27 <ArchonAlarion> It is fundamental, seeing as it directly relates an element to another by functional organization

    14/10/2010 02:27 <Bionicgoat> dead things but they know where you are and come at you

    14/10/2010 02:27 <Trevor> foundation? how so?

    14/10/2010 02:27 <Bionicgoat> yeah vero

    14/10/2010 02:27 <Bionicgoat> undead zombies who want to give you scabies

    14/10/2010 02:27 <Vero> It would be pretty insane. Especially when you started running into loved ones

    14/10/2010 02:26 <labcoat> most people are too dense to even realize Static/Dynamic is the foundation of socionics

    14/10/2010 02:26 <Bionicgoat> not virus zombies

    14/10/2010 02:26 <labcoat> trev, a second Static/Dynamic dichotomy that NO ONE knows about

    14/10/2010 02:26 <Bionicgoat> undead zombies

    14/10/2010 02:25 <Bionicgoat> imagine how unbelievably creepy real zombies would be

    14/10/2010 02:25 <Trevor> loosely i intuit all this shit is important

    14/10/2010 02:25 <labcoat> yeah dead rising is the ultimate feelgood game

    14/10/2010 02:25 <ArchonAlarion> yeah vero

    14/10/2010 02:25 <ArchonAlarion> *eve

    14/10/2010 02:25 <ArchonAlarion> yes they itch. especially in the ve

    14/10/2010 02:25 <Vero> Party of me wishes, just for a day, that I could live out the video game dead rising. Honestly, when they have virtual reality video games, I hope they recreate dead rising so I can play it

    14/10/2010 02:25 <Trevor> i have no firm opinion on the matter

    14/10/2010 02:24 <ArchonAlarion> they could call the movie "ded bugs" or something.

    14/10/2010 02:24 <Bionicgoat> do they itch?

    14/10/2010 02:24 <ArchonAlarion> im a new form of zombie... not a mutant rabies zombie, but a mutant SCABIES zombie... MY NE PERCEPTION IS EXPANDING

    14/10/2010 02:23 <labcoat> even smilex thinks it's just superficial object/field distributing stuff

    14/10/2010 02:23 <Bionicgoat> scabie apococalypse! flee!

    14/10/2010 02:22 <Bionicgoat>

    14/10/2010 02:22 <labcoat> no one else cares to investigate this

    14/10/2010 02:22 <Vero> people, take out your shot guns, they've burrowed into his brain

    14/10/2010 02:22 <labcoat> trev, this is revolutionary stuff. only you and I have this power

    14/10/2010 02:22 <Trevor> but would like to be enlightened

    14/10/2010 02:22 <Vero> at scabies talking

    14/10/2010 02:22 <Vero> I loled

    14/10/2010 02:22 <Trevor> i dunno wtf are you talking about

    14/10/2010 02:22 <labcoat> this makes Taciturn/Narrator the most underrated dichotomy

    14/10/2010 02:22 <labcoat> Static/Dynamic is the most powerful dichotomy in socionics

    14/10/2010 02:21 <labcoat> Taciturn/Narrator is like the counterpart to Static/Dynamic

    14/10/2010 02:21 <Trevor> Merry is Taciturn N narrative S

    14/10/2010 02:21 <labcoat> yes, generally put Alpha NTs and Beta STs

    14/10/2010 02:20 <Trevor> So do ENTp and ESTp

    14/10/2010 02:20 <labcoat> but when I check it with my ISTj brother, it's there.

    14/10/2010 02:19 <labcoat> this is something no one ever realizes

    14/10/2010 02:19 <labcoat> there you go, deep secret no1

    14/10/2010 02:19 <labcoat> INTj and ISTj have Taciturn N - Narrative S duality

    14/10/2010 02:19 <Bionicgoat>

    14/10/2010 02:19 <Bionicgoat> shit. conversation killer sorry

    14/10/2010 02:18 <Bionicgoat>

    14/10/2010 02:18 <labcoat> like saying INTjs are psychopaths

    14/10/2010 02:18 <ArchonAlarion> lmao

    14/10/2010 02:18 <ArchonAlarion> i may care, if i understand them better

    14/10/2010 02:17 <Bionicgoat> that's just the scabies talking

    14/10/2010 02:17 <ArchonAlarion> oh i dont care about the dichotomies. Just his book presented the types in a way that made things clearer and more generally applicable

    14/10/2010 02:17 <labcoat> Taciturn Logic, the Logic that Delta ST and Alpha NT have in common

    14/10/2010 02:16 <labcoat> like the ability to conjure up new function symbols out of nowhere

    14/10/2010 02:16 <Trevor> or functions have types

    14/10/2010 02:16 <labcoat> i think it harbors very deep secrets

    14/10/2010 02:16 <Trevor> type has functions

    14/10/2010 02:16 <labcoat> Taciturn/Narrator is the craziest dichotomy in socionics

    14/10/2010 02:16 <labcoat> Static type has Static functions

    14/10/2010 02:15 <labcoat> it's already in the IE definitions so kinda redundant

    14/10/2010 02:15 <Trevor> man you come right out of a comic book

    14/10/2010 02:15 <Trevor> so static/dynamic is rubbish?

    14/10/2010 02:15 <labcoat> i'd say only Process/Result, Positive/Negative and maybe Taciturn/Narrator are worth looking into

    14/10/2010 02:14 <labcoat> most of the dichotomies hardly exist in any meaningful way

    14/10/2010 02:14 <labcoat> the names he introduced are the only useful thing about his work

    14/10/2010 02:13 <labcoat> reinin is overrated

    14/10/2010 02:13 <Trevor> even they can do nothing against reinin dichotomies

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

    Default

    Taciturn/Narrator is the most underrated dichotomy in socionics.

    It is a bit of a travesty that it is so poorly known and understood. Kind of like a cosmic error. Something that was not supposed to happen.

    Socionics could have had a completely different face if this dichotomy had been found to be as important as it is at socionics' conception.

    The question is just, how to tap into it's power. What is Taciturn/Narrator duality for starters? Is it stronger than Static/Dynamic duality or not? How should the Taciturn/Narrator functions be described?

    These are all interesting questions.

  3. #3
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    522
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Eh, what is it?

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ENFj and INTj. Regular socionics theory claims these types have a relationship that is very much akin to duality.

    According to Taciturn/Narrator values theory, however, the relation is more similar to identicality. The two types share a Taciturn N function and this signifies a common mentality.

    Related to this is the fact that the types INTj and ISTj have the capacity to dualize eachother via Taciturn N and Narrative S.

    This is something to look out for.

  5. #5
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    ...
    Related to this is the fact that the types INTj and ISTj have the capacity to dualize eachother via Taciturn N and Narrative S.

    This is something to look out for.
    When you say dualize eachother, what do you exactly mean? Dualize eachother like classical socionics duals do, or?

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

    Default

    When you say dualize eachother, what do you exactly mean? Dualize eachother like classical socionics duals do, or?
    Mainly just something very similar to it. The kind of thing that could briefly made me think my ISTj brother might be an ISFp.

  7. #7
    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

    Asking and declaring - Wikisocion

    Taciturn is "asking", declaring is "narrating"

    The asking IM types are LII, ILE, EIE, IEI, ESI, SEE, LSE, SLI.
    The declaring IM types are ESE, SEI, LSI, SLE, LIE, ILI, EII, IEE.

    Asking types are either judicious and logical, or decisive and ethical.
    Declaring types are either decisive and logical, or judicious and ethical.

    Asking types are either merry and intuitive, or serious and sensitive.
    Declaring types are either serious and intuitive, or merry and sensitive.

    Intertype relations

    asking/declaring in common:
    identity · mirror · conflict · super-ego · semi-duality · illusionary · benefit

    asking/declaring not in common:
    duality · activation · quasi-identity · extinguishment · kindred · business · supervision

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    A - asking/taciturn
    D - declaring/narrative

    INTJ - INTA
    ENTP - ENTA
    ESFJ - ESFD
    ISFP - ISFD

    ISTJ - ISTD
    ESTP - ESTD
    ENFJ - ENFA
    INFP - INFA

    ISFJ - ISFA
    ESFP - ESFA
    ENTJ - ENTD
    INTP - INTD

    INFJ - INFD
    ENFP - ENFD
    ESTJ - ESTA
    ISTP - ISTA

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This dichotomy tells us something about the interaction of elements within the functional framework. Something about having Ti/Fe in the ego or super ID and being intuitive begets the taciturn behavior (if it is a relevant behavior at all).
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

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

  8. #8
    CILi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    635
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    ENFJ and INTJ...

    The relation is more similar to identicality. The two types share a Taciturn N function and this signifies a common mentality.
    If this refers to the same split as Asking/Declaring, does shared "Taciturn N" more signify a common mentality or a common style of communication? I suppose the two go hand-in-hand, to an extent; but what's "mentally" going on that makes ENFj/INTj communicate similarly?

    ETA: Archon mighta just answered all that.

  9. #9
    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

    I just clarified the terms is all.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

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

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The Taciturn/Narrator functions:
    Tt: Delta Te + Alpha Ti; Reasonable Logic
    Tn: Beta Ti + Gamma Te; Resolute Logic
    Nt: Alpha Ne + Beta Ni; Merry Intuition
    Nn: Gamma Ni + Delta Ne; Serious Intuition
    Ft: Beta Fe + Gamma Fi; Resolute Ethics
    Fn: Delta Fi + Alpha Fe; Reasonable Ethics
    St: Gamma Se + Delta Si; Serious Sensing
    Sn: Alpha Si + Beta Se; Merry Sensing

    Chains of types sharing ego T/N functions:
    ESTj Acc-Tt INTj Cre-Nt ENFj Acc-Ft ISFj Cre-St ESTj
    INFj Acc-Fn ESFj Cre-Sn ISTj Acc-Tn ENTj Cre-Nn INFj

    ISTp Cre-Tt ENTp Acc-Nt INFp Cre-Ft ESFp Acc-St ISTp
    ENFp Cre-Fn ISFp Acc-Sn ESTp Cre-Tn INTp Acc-Nn ENFp

  11. #11
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now look at the chain...

    ESTj Acc-Tt INTj Cre-Nt ENFj Acc-Ft ISFj Cre-St ESTj

    ... and ask yourself what is the counterpart to +/- in this sequence.

    Answer: Focal/Diffuse or Object/Field.

    * = Focal
    # = Diffuse
    i = Field
    e = Object

    ESTj *e Acc-Tt #i INTj *e Cre-Nt #i ENFj *e Acc-Ft #i ISFj *e Cre-St #i ESTj
    INFj #i Acc-Fn *e ESFj #i Cre-Sn *e ISTj #i Acc-Tn *e ENTj #i Cre-Nn *e INFj

    ISTp #e Cre-Tt *i ENTp #e Acc-Nt *i INFp #e Cre-Ft *i ESFp #e Acc-St *i ISTp
    ENFp *i Cre-Fn #e ISFp *i Acc-Sn #e ESTp *i Cre-Tn #e INTp *i Acc-Nn #e ENFp

  12. #12
    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

    What does this add to our understanding of the types? Does it clarify any peculiarities?
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

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

  13. #13
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    It clarifies EVERYTHING!!

    I can't believe I'm the only one that sees the potential in this.

  14. #14
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,625
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I get the post #10 and I understand how it deals with potentially complementary relationships even with types that would teorethically be suboptimal. I don't understand post #11, could you clarify / make it more simple?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  15. #15
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Following that train of thought, it turns into something almost exactly like Socionics, only turned on its head - so it strikes me as very prone to becoming a way to smooth out typing errors in Socionics. Now, if you could figure out how the Taciturn/Narrator functions work simultaneously with the regular Socionics functions, then you might be onto something... but the thoeory would need to be revamped to use either smaller pieces or quite different mechanics.

    This also reminds me of when I declared that Beta Ti was the Judging form of Sensing, and etc., swapping the type (but not the temperament) of all Aristocratic functions. I decided that that was rubbish, which kinda biases me against this. But, maybe that's like dismissing Socionics on account of MBTI being rotten. I'll wait until you've reconciled things a bit more...



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  16. #16
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    What does this add to our understanding of the types? Does it clarify any peculiarities?
    It would establish certain similarities between you and your illusionary when in accepting mode, and between you and your semi-dual when in creating mode. IME, the former is bourne out by personal experience, with me and IEIs usually having a similar appreciation for the complexity of the origin of a problem (without necessarily agreeing about anything ).
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  17. #17
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    On -Fe/+Fi,

    A typical description of EIIs talks about their willingness to be totally cooperative and to share your world, whereas descriptions of ESIs ofter up an image of someone who is skeptical of different values, hard to convince and so on.

    That's basically a restatement of ethics in terms of either judicious (-Fe/+Fi) and decisive (-Fi/+Fe) values. Normally, we'd associate the above descriptions with Si/Ne or Se/Ni rather than Fi to make the values work, but that may be hard to believe since it takes away from their "raw" unfiltered perception of the world and imputes to them discrete judgmental qualities that may be better associated with rationality.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  18. #18
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    sense-declaration and static thought are the essence of merry...laughter continuously forcing your brain to wake up to behold the elements of a system so that you can rely on the changed and better feelings that are internally probed by intuitive-interrogation, which is the drive for improvement of a condition; knowledge, the ability to declare from within the abstract, is usually accompanied by sense-asking which is essentially the drive to assimilate more knowledge, absolute intuitive certainty is reserved for unchanging feelings (boy who cried wolf) with regard to a need for sense likewise static sense and declaring thought is the essence of decision, continuous sense guided by declarations of thought imply a change in the intution of possibilities and perhaps inadequacy in the emotions...static intuition and declaring feeling is the essence of reason, continuous intuition guided by declarations of feeling allow one to sort between many senses housed within a centralized framework to a answer rhetorical questions regarding competence and relationships
    Last edited by Nexus; 10-18-2010 at 05:53 AM.

  19. #19
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    It would establish certain similarities between you and your illusionary when in accepting mode, and between you and your semi-dual when in creating mode.
    Exactly. It postulates these types are adjacent in a model that allows for micro type changes, just like we generally have no difficulty accepting as being the case with look-a-likes and comparatives. But the micro type change model isn't essential to the idea either. The types are just similar, or share some mentality; share a function.

  20. #20
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In these new "temperaments" that allow for micro type-changes what remains the same as in the old ones is the NTSF cyclicity of functions and stability of Rationality/Irrationality. So basically you have Negative/Taciturn/Rational, Positive/Narrator/Rational, Negative/Narrator/Irrational and Positive/Taciturn/Irrational "temperaments".

    For me, personally, the most interesting thing is: If you were to construct Positive/Negative functions, same way you constructed Taciturn/Narrator ones, and keeping the NTSF cyclicity of functions and the stability of Rationality/Irrationality, you'd get the same temperaments, of course, but where the order of types would be reversed. For example: In Negative/Taciturn/Rational group where functions would go from N(Neg) to T(Neg) to S(Neg) to F(Neg) and to N(Neg) again; types would go like this: ESTj=>ISFj=>ENFj=>INTj=>ESTj. Reversed.

    This reversibility should probably hold true for every small group designation of this kind(N>T>F>S). Saying probably because I haven't checked that out yet but have no major reasons for doubt.

    What good is to be found in this is yet to be seen. If any.
    Last edited by Trevor; 10-21-2010 at 10:18 AM.

  21. #21
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Taciturn/Narrator is the most underrated dichotomy in socionics.
    I agree. In his book Reinin mentions that it is even more useful for typing than introverted/extraverted and rational/irrational. I'm not sure if he is right in the case of positivist/negativist, though...

    What makes asking/declaring especially interesting is, there is no convincing explanation for it in Model A. There is no corresponding function dichotomy:
    Merry/serious and judicious/decisive can be explained with valued/subdued.
    Carefree/farsighted and yielding/obstinate can be explained with evaluatory/situational.
    Tactical/strategic and constructivist/emotivist can be explained with inert/contact.
    Static/dynamic can be explained with mental/vital.

    The remaining four dichotomies have to be explained differently. Function blocking, plus/minus and all the stuff. Not really convincing. In other words: Democratic/aristocratic, process/result, positivist/negativist and asking declaring truly add information to socionics which is not included in Model A...
    Last edited by JohnDo; 10-18-2010 at 12:28 PM.

  22. #22
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What makes asking/declaring especially interesting is, there is no convincing explanation for it in Model A. There is no corresponding function dichotomy:
    That's because you need +/- and Focal/Diffuse to make sense of it. Welcome to the upper leagues, rookie.

    Carefree/farsighted and yielding/obstinate can be explained with evaluatory/situational.
    Tactical/strategic and constructivist/emotivist can be explained with inert/contact.
    Evaluatory/situational and inert/contact don't have a workable definition. They are both random groupings of functions with nothing in common. You CAN however, explain Carefree/Farsighted, Tac/Strat, Obst/Comp and Emo/Const with a combination of T/F or N/S and Focal/Diffuse, focussing on their distribution over Strong/Weak or Valued/Unvalued functions. This is a slightly complicated procedure, so to explain it in detail would take up a bit more space that I'm willing to fill up with words right now.

    In other words: Democratic/aristocratic, process/result, positivist/negativist and asking declaring truly add information to socionics which is not included in Model A...
    They don't add information. It's +/- in combination with function attributes (object/field, focal/diffuse, rational/irrational, base/creative) that add the information. All you need is an understanding of +/- to make sense of three of these and the fourth is clarified by the addition of the easy to define and highly meaningful Focal/Diffuse dichotomy.

  23. #23
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We should look at an alternative hypothesis regarding this. Here is Gulenko's energy-model:

    +Ne -> -Te -> +Se -> -Fe
    +Ti -> -Ni -> +Fi -> -Si

    -Ti becomes +Ti when creating. Might that have something to do with limitting/empowering? He seems to be applying process/result to the whole ego block, rather than one function at a time. In any case, it would revise the earlier statement:

    It would establish certain similarities between you and your illusionary when in accepting mode, and between you and your supervisee when in creating mode.

    I'm not entirely sure what's up with the "-Si".

    /mental wanking
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  24. #24
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We should look at an alternative hypothesis regarding this. Here is Gulenko's energy-model:

    +Ne -> -Te -> +Se -> -Fe
    +Ti -> -Ni -> +Fi -> -Si
    Looks like gibberish. How would you convince me that this is something more than just a meaningless random sequence? Any extra context on this?

    -Ti becomes +Ti when creating
    That's an entirely new introduction; not something that could have been read from the "model" you initially displayed. I think such a claim would create a model where the supervision ring defines the sequence of adjacent types. A slightly awkward claim considering people typically have a huge lot of difficulty emulating their supervisor.

    Might that have something to do with limitting/empowering?
    I don't see any way in which it would.

    He seems to be applying process/result to the whole ego block, rather than one function at a time.
    That's what I usually do. Process/Result applied to a single function is Accepting/Creating and +/-. The Process/Result tag only means something in relation to combining functions into a block. I hope you're not implying that nasty practice of calling a type by it's base function alone that should be stamped out, punished and ridiculed on every oppurtune occasion.

    It would establish certain similarities between you and your illusionary when in accepting mode, and between you and your supervisee when in creating mode.
    Sounds like it would create a really ugly system with neither symmetry nor any common sense justification to it.

  25. #25
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Looks like gibberish. How would you convince me that this is something more than just a meaningless random sequence? Any extra context on this?
    Afaik, the top row is just Augusta's heat engine with +/- signs: +, -, +, -.

    Ne (potential Energy) -> Te (conversion of potential to kinetic energy) -> Se (kinetic energy) -> Fe (conversion of kinetic to potential energy) -> Ne

    I can only guess how he derived the bottom.

    That's an entirely new introduction; not something that could have been read from the "model" you initially displayed. I think such a claim would create a model where the supervision ring defines the sequence of adjacent types. A slightly awkward claim considering people typically have a huge lot of difficulty emulating their supervisor.
    +Ti is in the creative function slot in his model, unless you want to dispute that.

    That's what I usually do. Process/Result applied to a single function is Accepting/Creating and +/-. The Process/Result tag only means something in relation to combining functions into a block. I hope you're not implying that nasty practice of calling a type by it's base function alone that should be stamped out, punished and ridiculed on every oppurtune occasion.
    I agree, but the bolded sounds like a minor disagreement about semantics with respect to the preferred alternative.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  26. #26
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    +Ti is in the creative function slot in his model, unless you want to dispute that.
    So Ne+ and Ti+ refer to two functions in one type's ego block? That makes even less sense. Normally the +/- sign has to differ between these two.

    I agree, but the bolded sounds like a minor disagreement about semantics with respect to the preferred alternative.
    No. It's a corrupt practice that places a misleading emphasis and has a direct degenerative effect on one's understanding of socionics.

  27. #27
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    So Ne+ and Ti+ refer to two functions in one type's ego block? That makes even less sense. Normally the +/- sign has to differ between these two.
    For all I know, it's just a formalism for saying that the whole ego block is process. I.e. there is no such thing as "result creating".
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  28. #28
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Looks like gibberish. How would you convince me that this is something more than just a meaningless random sequence? Any extra context on this?
    What stands out to me is that he uses the dynamic - functions and the static + functions. What's Static/Dynamic XOR +/-? ...Smilexian Abstract/Concrete? (That's the same as Focal/Diffuse, right?)

    The first row - Democratic Extravert functions
    The second row - Aristocratic Introvert functions

    Noting Jxrtes' last post, that would be Democratic Extravert base functions and Aristocratic Introvert base functions. That means that all of the negativist types are left out... and I don't see any reason why the cycles that we do have should go in the direction that they do and not the opposite direction:

    ILE->LIE->SEE->ESE
    LSI->IEI->EII->SLI

    I would suppose the other two are:

    SEI->ESI->ILI->LII
    EIE->SLE->LSE->IEE

    I still don't see any reason for it to be in the order that he put it in...



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  29. #29
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That means that all of the negativist types are left out
    What I posted was the energy-model for ILEs. I'd imagine there is one for every type.

    ----

    I stumbled accross this article while looking for some clarification. ????? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ?. ?. ?????????????? ?????? ?????????????? ???????. ????????? ? ????????????????

    Huh. It seems like he may not be using +/- to mean process/result, but to mean strong gas / weak breaking. This is a totally different model from the OP, sorry to have brought it up.

    — function energomaksimuma - strong gas, but a weak brake (+ -)
    — function energominimuma - a strong brake, but a weak gas (- +)
    — function energooptimuma - high gas and brake strong (+ +), the most controlled function
    Though what really confuses the issue is that he only uses one sign per function later on.


    And Edit: I made another mistake. Should be like this for ILE:

    +Ne -> -Te -> +Se -> -Fe
    +Ti -> -Si -> +Fi -> -Ni
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  30. #30
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Posting Functional Revise, as suggested by Trevor:

    N/S Quadrants


    The Originals, The Non-Conformists (+Ne/-Ni in ego, +Si/-Se agenda) INTj; ENTp; ENFj; INFp

    This group attempts to be original and unique. It has a strong need to overthrow authority. This group is into novelty and anything that is unique. As a matter

    of fact, the feelers in this group tend to make up a big majority of “gothic/emo” people. This group has a strong need to rebel. Also, this group is very

    optimistic about the future and often at times think about all the great things that could happen. This group tends to analyze the past and remember all of the

    failed mistakes it has made. This group often fails to complete its tasks. Often lacks the willpower to get things done.

    The Imaginatives (-Ne/+Ni in ego, -Si/+Se agenda) INFj; ENFp; ENTj; INTp

    This group is define by its timeless and dreamy like imagination. This group notices all the alternatives that can go wrong in a given situation. This group is

    also good at seeing the mediocrity in things. The worthlessness of things is always visible to this group. This group is also good at reading people. This group

    likes to read people. They want to know the true motives behind peoples actions. It is good at predicting the future due to seeing past and present trends of

    things. These types live in the world of what will happen, not what could happen. These types have a strong need to make sure that nothing bad happens to them.

    They don’t want to be in pain or agony. These types will wash their hands often and keep up their hygiene. This group lacks initiative. It often has a hard time

    starting new endeavors. It hardly notices the wonderful little things in life that make the body feel pleasant.

    The Doers, The Aggressives (-Se/+Si in ego, +Ne/-Ni agenda) ESFj; ISFp; ISTj; ESTp

    This group is the aggressive types. This group gets things done. They have a certain element that makes them have to make sure that everything is perfect. This

    group is good making sure things are done on time. They notice all the positive sensations that their bodies produce; beauty, taste of food, the enjoyment of

    relaxation, etc. They take good care of their bodies. They try to keep their bodies in top physical condition. This group can be openly direct with people. This

    group lacks the ability to see the negative potentials of things. It only has a need to be optimistic.

    The Experiencers (+Se/-Si in ego, -Ne/+Ni agenda) ESTj; ISTp; ESFp; ISFj

    This groups main focus is to enjoy the world. The feeling types will try to interact with the people here and find enjoyment in things like parties. This group

    has a need to see the world and explore it. This group enjoys the things that the world has to offer. This group also has a strong need to notice the negative

    potential in things. This group can be very skeptical of how things turn out. This group notices all the negative sensations that the body produces. This group

    notices all the pain that the body produces. This group likes new and unique sensations. This group has a hard time see the positive potentials of things.

    T/F Quadrants


    The Creators/Systematizers (-Ti/+Te in ego, -Fe/+Fi agenda) INTj; ENTp; ISTp; ESTj

    This group is the producers of ideas in the world. The intuitive types introduce and implement new and extraordinary ideas. The sensing types attempt to produce

    and implement ways to be economical. This group can be very analytical, they analyze the situation and put the best idea into production. This group tries to

    break things apart and analyze them as them are at their deepest core. This group can be very rude, as its their functional need to be sarcastic and mean to

    people. In the intuitive types though, social anxiety can get in the way of this. This group wants to love and be happy. This group has a hard time appearing

    happy to the people around them. They are hardly ever completely nice to people.

    The Controllers (+Ti/-Te in ego, +Fe/-Fi agenda) INTp; ENTj; ISTj; ESTp

    This group works best when put in a position of chaos. It can get rid of the problems of things and make sure that nothing stands in the way of an

    accomplishment. This group as leaders have no remorse about getting rid of people via firing them. This group follows the rules. It knows its place in the

    hierarchy of things. These people organize things and make sure that things are organized and in order. This group is extremely decisive. This group tries its

    best to be nice and kind to people. Inside though, these type has a need to be lonely depressed and withdrawn. This group doesn’t know what happiness or love is.
    The Peacefuls (+Fi/-Fe in ego, -Ti/+Te agenda) INFj; ENFp; ISFp; ESFj

    This group can be very mean and rude to people in an attempt to get them to do something to better them. Inside they are happy and love people unconditionally,

    but outside they can be very emotional, dramatic, and alarming. This group has a need to understand the inner workings of things. It also has a need to be

    productive. This group pays little or no attention to detail. Although the sensing types like to clean, these types lack logical organization.

    The Depressives (-Fi/+Fe in ego, +Ti/-Te agenda) INFp; ENFj; ISFj; ESFp

    This group feels very depressed and lonely inside. They tend to feel a touch of dissatisfaction with the people in which they are in a relationship with. They

    push people away. They have a sorrowful and tragic view of the world. They are nice to people. They try to bring out the positive emotions of people. They laugh

    a lot and attempt to get other people to laugh. This group has a need to organize and study things carefully. This group may read a lot.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  31. #31
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmm, new knowledge to devour.
    I'm bad at separating unique tendencies from unspecific generalizations, but some of this stuff I've noticed.

  32. #32
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labocat View Post
    The Taciturn/Narrator functions:
    Tt: Delta Te + Alpha Ti; Reasonable Logic
    Tn: Beta Ti + Gamma Te; Resolute Logic
    Nt: Alpha Ne + Beta Ni; Merry Intuition
    Nn: Gamma Ni + Delta Ne; Serious Intuition
    Ft: Beta Fe + Gamma Fi; Resolute Ethics
    Fn: Delta Fi + Alpha Fe; Reasonable Ethics
    St: Gamma Se + Delta Si; Serious Sensing
    Sn: Alpha Si + Beta Se; Merry Sensing

    Chains of types sharing ego T/N functions:
    ESTj Acc-Tt INTj Cre-Nt ENFj Acc-Ft ISFj Cre-St ESTj
    INFj Acc-Fn ESFj Cre-Sn ISTj Acc-Tn ENTj Cre-Nn INFj

    ISTp Cre-Tt ENTp Acc-Nt INFp Cre-Ft ESFp Acc-St ISTp
    ENFp Cre-Fn ISFp Acc-Sn ESTp Cre-Tn INTp Acc-Nn ENFp
    Doesn't this imply that, at the disjunctive functional level, types as a whole function like other types combined?

    Duality:
    ISFp broken down equals Base ESTp Se and Creative ENFp Fi
    ENTp broken down equals Base INFp Ni and Creative ISTp Te

    That's duality but what about the Asymmetric relations and the types involved?

    Supervision:
    ENTp broken down equals Base INFp Ni and Creative ISTp Te
    INFj broken down equals Base ESFj Fe and Creative ENTj Ne

    Supervised at every point, the same goes for Benefit relations.
    But what about the constituent types?

    ENTp broken down equals Base INFp Ni and Creative ISTp Te
    ESFj broken down equals Base INFj Fi and Creative ISTj Se

    The Supervisor's Base function is in the same position as the Activator's Base.

    Recognizing +/- implies Supervisor acts as combination of Activator and Quasi, likewise Activator and Quasi act partly as Supervisor. The same logic would apply to all types, but the focus here is on the Asymmetric Relations.

    Supervisor = ½Activator + ½Quasi
    Benefactor = ½Mirror + ½Conflict
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  33. #33
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Doesn't this imply that, at the disjunctive functional level, types as a whole function like other types combined?
    it can at times make sense to view them that way. i sense that i can "supervise" INFps at times. also on the topic of supervision, there are two ways to interpret supervision:

    Accepting function supervises Creating function opposite in Internal/External (examples: Acc-Se -> Cre-Ne; Acc-Fi -> Cre-Ti)
    Creating function supervises Accepting function equal in Interal/External (examples: Cre-Ti -> Acc-Ti; Cre-Ne -> Acc-Ne)

    both yield the empirically justified conclusion that ESTps supervise INTjs, ENFps supervise ISFjs, etc.

    now allowing for use of ID functions, this makes INTjs supervise INFps in multiple ways:
    ID Cre-Ni -> ego Acc-Ni
    ID Acc-Te -> ego Cre-Fe

    this can probably also be expressed in terms of Taciturn/Narrator functions...

    i think your presentation shows how the "switching" of the two types in each line yields the new way of interpreting supervision. normally you'd match J functions to J functions and P to P, but the Taciturn/Narrator view turns the whole thing on it's head... without breaking the logic behind the system.

  34. #34
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labocat View Post
    it can at times make sense to view them that way. i sense that i can "supervise" INFps at times. also on the topic of supervision, there are two ways to interpret supervision:

    Accepting function supervises Creating function opposite in Internal/External (examples: Acc-Se -> Cre-Ne; Acc-Fi -> Cre-Ti)
    Creating function supervises Accepting function equal in Interal/External (examples: Cre-Ti -> Acc-Ti; Cre-Ne -> Acc-Ne)

    both yield the empirically justified conclusion that ESTps supervise INTjs, ENFps supervise ISFjs, etc.
    I was actually looking for where you and FDG stated this, before I made the post. I'm confused about the two kinds of "supervision" involved. Like what does "supervision" mean for each case? One thing that seems right is Smilingeyes stating that the Creating function "pushes" the Accepting version around.


    now allowing for use of ID functions, this makes INTjs supervise INFps in multiple ways:
    ID Cre-Ni -> ego Acc-Ni
    ID Acc-Te -> ego Cre-Fe

    this can probably also be expressed in terms of Taciturn/Narrator functions...

    i think your presentation shows how the "switching" of the two types in each line yields the new way of interpreting supervision. normally you'd match J functions to J functions and P to P, but the Taciturn/Narrator view turns the whole thing on it's head... without breaking the logic behind the system.
    It seems pretty straightforward, but I don't see any potential from the knowledge. I only see that typing is much more easier and accurate with it, and that types are like legos.

    I still don't understand the Focal/Diffuse stuff.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  35. #35
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was actually looking for where you and FDG stated this, before I made the post. I'm confused about the two kinds of "supervision" involved. Like what does "supervision" mean for each case? One thing that seems right is Smilingeyes stating that the Creating function "pushes" the Accepting version around.
    they're both ways of interpreting the empirical phenomenon of supervision between types. what supervision is is not dependent on the interpretation.

    however, how i would transcribe the interpretations:
    1st interpretation: the "bull in a china store" effect; one person behaves indiscriminately (~Accepting) and without intending it pointedly, ends up harming the idealistic (~Creating) activity of a person using the opposite function; the conflict between the functions is settled by the fact that one person uses the energy-efficient indiscrimate version whereas the other person uses an energy-intensive discriminate version
    2nd interpretation: the "criticism and correction" effect; one person uses an indiscriminate approach (~Accepting) to find an answer to a question and is corrected by a person using the same mental tool in a discriminate (~Creating) way

    the important thing to realize is that BOTH are going on between any supervisor and it's supervisee.

    i like the introduction of the 2nd interpretation because it dispells the notion that Accepting functions are "better" than Creating functions because they are incapable of being attacked through supervision. knowing both interpretations means you have to conclude than ANY function is vulnerable. there are no mental "safe havens", no hiding places where you can get away with "not thinking". only by using the full range of functions is perfection reached. i like this view.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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