Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Beta Ni EM Discussion

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Beta Ni EM Discussion

    This is a working draft. Need your input.



    IEI EMs pay special attention to personality disorders. Incorrect choices (or patterns of choices) interest them. Each IM function contributes a certain something to IEI understanding of personality.


    Ti(N)
    Unstable perspective: "One must know good from evil, and sanity from insanity."
    Stable perspective: "Choices and ethics reflect the type of the person. For each type there exists a definite set of premises which can only be true for that type."

    Ti(N) creates the rock around which the rest of the functions revolve. It takes a black, white and gray approach to ethics and philosophy. Ti(N) makes a point of noting that gray comes in two varieties, leaning black and leaning white. The stable belief element emphasizes the lean, while the unstable element emphasizes the gray. The stable emphasizes that a person -is- in such and such state, while the unstable element emphasizes the danger of ignoring a person's actual behaviorial correspondence with the supposed state. ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions")


    Ti(S)
    Unstable perspective: "Through transformation, maladaptive minds can be made adaptive."
    Stable perspective: "It is through no fault nor virtue of the individual they they choose for the better or the worse, nor do right or wrong -- they are as they are."

    Ti(S) is the psychiatry side of IEI EM. To Ti(S) everything is fundamentally mechanical. The brain is a machine and bad decisions are a sign that the machine is broken. The stable belief element emphasizes that there is a disorder, that something is not right. The unstable element emphasizes that by transforming the brain the individual will be effectually changed. This type pays special attention to the promulgation of psychopathology from the chronic to the healthy, observing how pathological relationships can transform a person's behavior and ethics.


    Fi(N)
    Reformer perspective: "By controlling their impulses people can be good"
    Stable perspective: "The ethics and choices of the individual reflect their motives and needs."

    Fi(N) uses experience to correlate choices with motivations. It's what labels the individual, not the choice, as good or evil. A person who makes a poor choice may or may not have evil motives, depending on the choice. Some choices reflect good intentions, some reflect bad intentions, and some are morally ambiguous enough that the values of the judge shape the judgment. This function is highly value laden and a chief instrument of political conflict. The stable belief function emphasizes persistent patterns of behavior and is the basis of belief that people "don't change". The unstable belief function emphasizes that changes in behavior may indicate a change of heart.


    Fi(S)
    Reformer perspective: "Wrong beliefs and errant values may lead one astray."
    Stable perspective "Choices and ethics reflect values and beliefs."

    Fi(S) seeks to understand the values which underlies choices and personal ethics. The stable perspective emphasizes truth in belief, while the unstable perspective emphasizes the importance of adjusting values in the name of a greater good. A person's beliefs, in this view, can set them on the path to good or evil, therefore they must choose their beliefs carefully. This function specializes in reforming people whom have been corrupted by false ideology, thus leading them "back into the light."


    Ni(T)
    Reformer perspective: "One wrong choice, one ill deed leads to another."
    Stable perspective: "Choices and ethics frame a person's path in life."

    Ni(T) observes the chronological relationship between choices. It observes precisely how, for example, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It can observe what set a person on the path to destruction and downfall, or alternatively, what choice marked the beginning of their turnaround for the better. When organizations fail, Ni(T)-Ni(F) can explain why: one bad choice, one poor appointment... an avalanche of mismanagement, incompetence, and ultimately failure. Ni(T) can predict the outcome of a person's dreams and ambitions based on their ethics and the probable emotional response to the same.


    Ni(F)
    Reformer perspective: "You are the master of your own destiny."
    Stable perspective: "A choice in one situation indicates a similar choice in a similar situation."

    Ni(F), in context of Ni(F) EM, observes the depth of a condition indicated by a choice. One choice may indicate individual responses to a host of similar situations. It is the means by which one predicts behavior based on past examples. In the aggregate, this position can assess the depth to which a person leans towards either sanity or insanity, the ethical or the unethical. It can, for example, gauge senility, and moral degradation. It can observe these either in the context of an individual, or an entire community. To understand how, consider the following premise:

    "A person who makes choice A in situation C will make choice B in situation D because choice A is related to choice B."

    Consider that choice A is a matter of ethical prerogative, either ethical or unethical. Let's assume it's unethical. Then we have an indication that in choice B, which can either be ethical or unethical, the unethical option will be chosen. Now let's assume that Ni(F)-Ni(F) was incorrect because it assumed too much good will on the part of the individual, and instead a far worse choice was selected when B actually came along. Then, we would presume based on that that choice B (now choice A) indicates a new, worse choice B, the question then arising, "is reform still possible?", to which the answer may be an even worse choice B, or a reformed choice B.

    Te(S)
    Reformer perspective: "Act the part."
    Stable perspective: "Individual ethics and sanity are important in determining the suitability of persons for positions."

    Te(S) observes the relationship between choices and position. This function asserts entitlement to positions based on ethical and mental suitability. It will not abridge the assumption of these positions by the unqualified without argument. The void perspective observes unsuitability for the position, the full perspective suitability. This function is also scrutinizing with respect to team membership in general -- it requires certain standards of competence and character depending on the responsibilities of the position. (it will consult Si for information by which to make these judgments).


    Fe(S)
    Reformer perspective: "Be respectable."
    Stable perspective: "Opinions and attitudes reflect wisdom and character."


    Se(T)
    Reformer perspective: "Personal will is important to a healthy psychopathology."
    Stable perspective: "Psychopathology reflects the balance of powers between good and evil, sanity and insanity."

    This perspective observes psychological health as a factor of personal will. It is not to be confused with Ni(F):Se(T), which observes the ability of a person to, through strength of will, turn the world's mentality towards either the better or the worse. Rather, this combination observes the consequences of what happens when this will is not present. That is the duality: one observes that which lies in the balance of the war between the powers, and the other observes the means by which this will might be harnessed. The game Fable illustrates this pairing very strongly: depending on the choices of the player, the game environment either improves or declines. By means of Se(T):Ni(F), it might be observed that the choices of the individual carry consequences in the context of a war between order and chaos which surpasses individual identity: a war rages between sanity and insanity, good and evil, with individual choices defining the outcome.

    Perhaps Zoroaster was the first exemplar of SLE-IEI.


    Se(F)
    Reformer perspective: "People should be accorded rights relative to their behavior."
    Stable perspective: "A person's ethics and beliefs are indicative of the rights to which they are entitled."

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What I need to know is this: how many of those behaviors. I know I got delta Te right because that pairing is George W. Bush's dominant. (remember how he campaigned against people based on their character? And let us never forget about "regime change" lol...). SLE-IEI I'm not sure about.

    Se(T)
    Reformer perspective: "Personal will is important to psychiatric health."
    Stable perspective: "Psychopathology reflects the balance of powers between good and evil, sanity and insanity."

    This perspective observes psychological health as a factor of personal will. It is not to be confused with Ni(F):Se(T), which observes the ability of a person to, through strength of will, turn the world's mentality towards either the better or the worse. Rather, this combination observes the consequences of what happens when this will is not present. That is the duality: one observes that which lies in the balance of the war between the powers, and the other observes the means by which this will might be harnessed. The game Fable illustrates this pairing very strongly: depending on the choices of the player, the game environment either improves or declines. By means of Se(T):Ni(F), it might be observed that the choices of the individual carry consequences in the context of a war between order and chaos which surpasses individual identity: a war rages between sanity and insanity, good and evil, with individual choices defining the outcome.

    Perhaps Zoroaster was the first exemplar of SLE-IEI.
    The question is this: would the reformer behavior described here apply more to IEIs or SLEs? (classical socionics-wise) What I'm thinking is that IEI would argue that personal will is important to making right choices, while SLE would argue that people must make the right choices to tip the scales in favor of healthy vs unhealthy leadership (or to even tip the wages of the battles inside their own heads, as per schizophrenia).

    The introvert thinking elements are also interesting. If a person is categorized based on choices, then wouldn't the reformer perspective argue that a person who makes choices contrary to the categorization defies the categorization? Also, if a person's internal makeup is reflected by their choices/behaviors, then wouldn't a choice contrary to the presumed machinery indicate a change in the actual machine itself?


    EDIT: confused SLE with IEI.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 10-24-2010 at 12:09 AM.

Posting Permissions

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