Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 53

Thread: A Little Bit of Alchemy Never Hurt Anyone

  1. #1
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A Little Bit of Alchemy Never Hurt Anyone

    http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/et/buklet.html#top

    I just now noticed that there is alot of disagreement and speculations about what the definitions of the functions mean. I'm not going to say that this is going to clear up any confusion but it might actually help a little bit in understanding what the functions are fundamentally. The above link is from the International Socionics Institute page and describles the "Qualia" of the symbols used for each of the 8 functions.

    I don't think its as philosophical as it looks at first.

    I shall summarize:

    Perception= Time and Space
    Judgement= Matter and Energy

    Time+Matter= NT
    Time+Energy= NF
    Space+Matter=ST
    Space+Energy=SF

    Time, space, matter and energy. These are the four elements which describe the 8 functions. When a function is introverted it appears to form correlations and associations with past experiences and memories, when a function is extraverted it correlates with actual experience, what is going on in the here and now.

    So one can deduce that introversion corresponds with associations, extraversion corresponds with practicality, what is real and tangible.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I understand what you mean but don't you think time is a bit subjective in terminology? I mean I don't go around focusing on time as it is happening in the current moment.

  3. #3
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think socionics starts with the four fundamental aspects of the human psychical experience. It looks like in the theory the body/mind processes information in four fundamental ways. In our reality there is Space, which is charted by time(distances between points). To travel through space and time you need first matter(what else travels through space?) and this matter needs to be powered by energy. Admin has brought this up a few times and it is an interesting connection with socionics theory. The "wave particle duality" in physics. I'm not a physicist but I think the theory basically states that "things" travelling through space have both wave(energy?) and particle(matter?) characteristics depending upon how you look at them. There is also an idea that time and space are really one thing as well. So we see the dichotomies as a reflection of "its all a matter of how you look at it". Its all dependent upon the observer sensitivities. We are all like tuned instruments in some cosmic orchestra. If the orchestra isnt balanced and it is playing many scores at once, well, you get a cacaphony. Basically what I am saying is that there may be more than subjectivity to all of this. It is extremely fundamental, so fundamental that perhaps to master the theory we all need to forget about everything else and just meditate on the four basic forces and how they resonate.


    But about Intuition:
    I think by time it refers, since it is relative to perception, the passage of things. So intuition is the passage of time/experience, or the patterns existing within experience, whereas sensing is the bodily stimulation which is brought on by the experience. When the perception of time is introverted it forms associations with the past. So this could put some grounds on the idea that INTp types are good at predicting future outcomes. They are good at absorbing the experience and charting it. Since it isnt interrupted by a flow of excess energy like it is with the INFp, the INTp most consciously can see patterns and predict outcomes. This, I believe, is well described by the word "time". I said it in a post before, perhaps a good way of seeing Ni is by thinking of what stereotyping is. In stereotyping you find a great deal of skepticism and also a great deal of accuracy. But, of course, it ignores incoming variables and unexpected mutations typical of open systems. Therefore works best in a closed system(introverted). It is good for business and refining pre-existing systems.

    Freud claimed that the Ego is in actuality the "Body Ego". The body ego is essentially the premise that our consciousness is based upon our body, it is attached to our perceptual experience. So when we act and behave it can be interpreted from afar as always related to our body's needs. Past experiences are stored as "object Cathexes". Object cathexes are stored energy related to a specific and usually recent experience. That's why when you are talking about something you may choose words, sometimes to your embarrassment, which are in some way transmutations of something you have been thinking about or that bothers you(freudian slips). Now this is a little different from the Socionics concept of the EGO since some are perceivers and some are judgers, but nonetheless perception is always part of the EGO, but some types focus on rationalizing the body's needs before acting. But the body always has its needs nomatter what, so this obviously costs judging types, while perceivers tend to get too caught up in the experience.

    So maybe we'd best imagine the body as an integrated whole existing in space and time(perception the vehicle for realizing this) and consisting of Matter and Energy(which functions using judgement). This may put things in better context. I put that bit about Freud because it is a good example about how the body interprets the reality it exists in and how it involves stores of energy and is always conscious of the past, whether it prioritizes time or not.


    Extraverted perceivers, namely intuitives, focus upon possibilities existing in the experience, living in the here and now. So maybe it is more the experience of time, (that is why it is not conscious)rather than the charting of it, which is done consciously by Ni types(while they are unconsciously experiencing its possibilities). So with this said, it takes all subjectivity away. existing in Ne does not mean you aren't experiencing time, you are, all the functions are being experienced simultaneously by outer reality. The "distance" of each function has an effect on our awareness of the elements existing in reality.

    Really, if you don't want to read my above rambling, at least read the below, this has proved very helpful to me:


    Ni types EXPERIENCE time, 'unknowingly' existing in possibilities. This is why it is an area of stubborness in the ID.

    Ne types EXPERIENCE possibilities, 'unknowingly' existing in time. This is why they have so much trouble with rules. again, the stubborness of the ID.

    etc..
    etc...
    the stubborn aspect of the id only exists because of the strength of the EGO. The ID is constantly being used to serve the EGO and does not listen to anything other than the orders of the EGO. Why would it? The EGO does all of the work and the ID gets all the stimulation :wink:I am now amazed by this because it is EXACTLY what Freud was talking about.
    Amazing.

  4. #4
    Creepy-

    Default The Physics of Socionics :P

    The only problem I have is this:

    Force has no definition that is not in terms of time, length, and mass. Force is measured in Newtons (N) which is the equivalent of a kg*m*(S^-2).

    I think what you are encapsulating in the world force would be better captured by temperature or some such.

    Now as for the rest of the definitions they are based on arbitrary circular standards.

    Example: Time

    What is a second?

    So time is defined in terms of temperature and radiation emitted (energy) both of which are defined in terms of the other base units. Energy in terms of kg*(m^2)*(s^-2) and temperature in terms of Kelvin which is in terms of Pressure which is in terms of kg*(m^-1)*(s^-2). So time is in terms of time as are all the other unit standards of weights and measures.

    This means that the definitions for those substances are circular and unusable as would be the definitions of the functions based on them.

    On the plus side you could come up with some interesting theories like:

    = (*)/(^2) or something. At least I imagine that's how it would work.... If and are both kg then how do you distinguish them?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry that was me above... was idle too long.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Second is rather artificial unit of time. Perhaps you should use the Planck time:

    Question

    What is Planck length? What is Planck time?

    Asked by: Adam Faust

    Answer

    The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

    And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.

    The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.
    http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The definitions of Planck length and time also have the same problems noted above:

    Meters:

    The unit of length is equal to the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during the time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second (17th CGPM (1983) Resolution 1, CR 97).
    The only reason I chose the second is because it is the international standard for measuring time.

    All of those things are in terms of each other A = B = C = D so they cannot be treated as things just as relations between the fundamental properties of the universe. All particles are in terms of them so we can't use those either which really sucks.

    For example the electron:

    Whether in terms of Planck's time or any other coefficient time has no meaning independent of it's operators which all have positivist definitions that cannot be proven.

    So all you would be doing by relating the functions to particles or whatever is switching the arbitrary definitions you are using. So why force the change if we cannot (so far as I can see) correlate the functions to coefficient values that can be plugged into the forulas of physics?

  8. #8
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I appreciate your time and criticisms on this. I also find your equation using functions interesting. Also, those are all Interesting thoughts and comments and sources. As far as I am aware there are no resources explaining mathematical properties of each function in terms of socionics, so for me I think its best to avoid speculating on how it is done. I see the names as an intuitive way of generalizing the two dichotomies of what they see perception as: Time(passage of things) and Space(things, thing that hold things)

    As I said I'm not much of a physicist and since I don't know the mathematical theories involved in Socionics it isn't my place to make conclusions quite yet. From on intuitive perspective I feel I have a decent understanding of what they mean by time. Maybe it will occur to you in some way similar to as it has occured for me.I know one can claim its "subjective" and all of this, but these same arguments can be applied to socionics in general, but yet here we are, spending alot of our time reading about it and looking into it as something real and tangible. Perhaps the titles are more geared toward overarching intuition than concrete formulas. But, of course, I just don't fully know why those titles were chosen, but they were. Since I have alot of faith in Socionics, I have alot of faith in these titles.

    I'll look into this some more and perhaps even study the formulas a bit(im not a mathematician, either). But honestly, when you analyze anything enough it becomes subjective, that is sort of a point i was trying to get across(time is really space, matter is really energy- all is one, its just the angle you enter the system from). But if you look at intuition as "the passage of things" I think that time, for me, looks like a good definition. It just looks right to me and I'm going to have faith in that conclusion for the time being.

    Lately I have been putting alot of thought into this and sometimes it is difficult to put my thoughts into words, but i am sure that I am making alot of headway now- things are really starting to connect for me. I am really starting to 'see it'. For me it always comes in a cloud.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  10. #10
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Transigent, I like these descriptions you wrote. Very pure, clean, and they all tie together.

    I agree about how many may look at the functions in terms of an MBTI theory. It seems that this is in many ways a new sort of thinking, one which requires a great amount of "synergy" and imagination. We humans do not need systems and formulas to understand ourselves and to categorize. All we need is to teach ourselves how to utilize the instruments nature has given us. In this pre-packaged world we have neglected that creative muscle that is the mind and have therefore narrowed our awareness a bit. It might take some time but thinking in terms of these forces might allow us to better utilize these our 'functions'.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddles W
    I see the names as an intuitive way of generalizing the two dichotomies of what they see perception as: Time(passage of things) and Space(things, thing that hold things)
    True I'm probably just being too nitpicky.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddles W
    From on intuitive perspective I feel I have a decent understanding of what they mean by time. Maybe it will occur to you in some way similar to as it has occured for me.I know one can claim its "subjective" and all of this, but these same arguments can be applied to socionics in general, but yet here we are, spending alot of our time reading about it and looking into it as something real and tangible. Perhaps the titles are more geared toward overarching intuition than concrete formulas.
    I think I understand the time concept I just don't like it to be tied to physical properties for various reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddles W
    all is one, its just the angle you enter the system from).
    Or all is nothing or all is in terms of some vaiable X that we do not have a grasp of as of yet. I tihnk the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddles W
    Lately I have been putting alot of thought into this and sometimes it is difficult to put my thoughts into words, but i am sure that I am making alot of headway now- things are really starting to connect for me. I am really starting to 'see it'. For me it always comes in a cloud.
    Yeah it is a very intuitive thing I just dunno how to explain it/make statements about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    Space is the opposite of all this. Static, "as is", and focused. High resolution to determine all the current qualities.
    This is why I don't like these terms because space is not like that according to quantum physics. Also there is no space without energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    Matter is the tangible, concrete things. Kind of like the space thing. Needs focus, and concentration (just like actual "organized thought", logic.)

    Energy is the intangibles. Kind of like the time thing. Needs unfocused mental energy (to "see the forest from the trees" since social interaction is based, not on one thing, but on a "general picture".)
    Ok I will say this I hav enoted the same correlation between N and F and T and S. I think that is part of why NFs are so spacey and weird while the STs are stuck in blocks of concrete mentally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    I believe what Serge Ganin says that Intertype Relations are the hard backbone of socionics and they can never be wrong.
    Ok now this is what attracted me to socionics in the first place the IF THIS THEN THIS aspect and I believe we can't lost that or it will devolve into nothingness.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.
    Does that also mean there is a quantised coordinate plane as well? If so, thats cool, cause we are then essentialy in a computer simulation with high resolution voxels (3D pixels).
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    671
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    we are then essentialy in a computer simulation
    I knew it! I knew it !
    http://forum.socionix.com

    I don't see what's so important about the possibility of extraterrestrial life. It's just more people to declare war on.

    EVERYONE PLZ CONTINUE TO UPLOAD INFINITE AMOUNT OF PICS OF "CUTE" CATS AND PUPPIES. YOU KNOW WE GIVE A SHIT!!

  14. #14
    Creepy-kaido21

    Default

    I have to agree that people around me in this forum have reached to Socionics through MBTI and don't see the picture in a clean Socionics way. Haven't got actually slightest idea how do understand the functions as the socionists do, but they do see it little bit differently than we seem to do. For example functions in Socionics are connected with the aspects of reality as each function recieves one aspect from the reality so I would say that do understand a function you have to imagine an aspect of reality like when thinking for Strucutral Logic instead of describing it I my self wuld imagine being in a room and seeing how it is built up (what is nearer to me, what is up from me and so on). So I would like to say that my uproach for the functions is in imagining what would you see when having each of the 8 functions in your conciousness for a time.

  15. #15
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaido21
    I have to agree that people around me in this forum have reached to Socionics through MBTI and don't see the picture in a clean Socionics way. Haven't got actually slightest idea how do understand the functions as the socionists do, but they do see it little bit differently than we seem to do. For example functions in Socionics are connected with the aspects of reality as each function recieves one aspect from the reality so I would say that do understand a function you have to imagine an aspect of reality like when thinking for Strucutral Logic instead of describing it I my self wuld imagine being in a room and seeing how it is built up (what is nearer to me, what is up from me and so on). So I would like to say that my uproach for the functions is in imagining what would you see when having each of the 8 functions in your conciousness for a time.
    I totally agree with this. It isn't like when a person is in a room a model A floats next to them and each function lights us as it is being used. Each function is, for all practical purposes, acting in an integrated whole. The body is always receiving sensory input and is always making judgements, its just that the consciousness never shifts too far out of the + conscious functions. That is, an extraverted perceiver, for example is always looking at their judging functions from a distance(applied extraverted perception, their judgements are always theoretical). They are always genuinely perceiving the reality and only make judgements fron outside eyes. The role function never becomes dominant, but it is always more applied than the creative and diffident functions. This way of seeing it might be helpful.

    And the connection between F and N and S and T that Transigent and PTL noted also seems interesting. I too noticed this when I was interested in the MBTI and this has not really changed for me since. In systems theory they call such similarities "isomorphisms". Essentially, an isomorphism is something that is "the same, but different". This can explain metaphors in alot of regards. It looks like judgement and perception are in some regards isomorphisms of one another, F and N somehow closer along the line than S and T. I always looked at ST types as somewhat "enslaved by the denotative particulate, whereas NF types are "possessed by the connotative wave".

    But as a long standing INFp friend would describe it: It all amounts to a balding fifty year old man standing there, shrugging his shoulders and going "Hey, ya never know!"

    *Socionics is just one of an infinitude of paths a person can take to describe reality and human relations. I think of all available, it is the best.

    *I'm taking this statement back, lil' too out there

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.
    Does that also mean there is a quantised coordinate plane as well? If so, thats cool, cause we are then essentialy in a computer simulation with high resolution voxels (3D pixels).
    No but that is what string theory is all about. You may want to look into that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
    Socionics is just one of an infinitude of paths a person can take to describe reality and human relations. I think of all available, it is the best.
    Wow... that is quite a statement...

    More isomorphisms:

    Fe and Ti (and all the support functions)

    Ni and Ne (and all the corrective functions)

    Se and Ne (and all the inhibitive functions)

    So yeah... like you said so many interconnections... we need to distinguish better.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It isn't like when a person is in a room a model A floats next to them and each function lights us as it is being used.
    You can easily narrow down if someone is using their ego and superego (I guess as an ENTp) and certain situations you can expect to push someone from ego to superego, based on the level of intimacy between the people you are observing. You can sort of see every function as it is used, or a mixture of them. I preffer to think in terms of ... which function are they lacking as they are saying what they say... and its usually the exact opposite function as the information they are confidently coveying. Their level of confidence also conveys which function they are using. There are many other cues and hints as to what it is they are using and thinking about. Usually it all depends on the type they are conversing with. Lets say a conflict pair is speaking to each other... you can see how fragile the communication is, as both are sorta hanging on the tip of a swinging tree to speak to one another, where anyone can easily shake things up.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  18. #18

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
    Perception= Time and Space
    Judgement= Matter and Energy

    Time+Matter= NT
    Time+Energy= NF
    Space+Matter=ST
    Space+Energy=SF
    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    Time is dynamic as opposed to static. Things are not seen "as is" but either "as they were" or "as they might be". The perception itself is unfocused because, given a long enough time scale (into the past OR future), everything has an effect on everything else. Since the perception is unfocused, the view is holistic, or all-inclusive.

    Space is the opposite of all this. Static, "as is", and focused. High resolution to determine all the current qualities.

    Matter is the tangible, concrete things. Kind of like the space thing. Needs focus, and concentration (just like actual "organized thought", logic.)

    Energy is the intangibles. Kind of like the time thing. Needs unfocused mental energy (to "see the forest from the trees" since social interaction is based, not on one thing, but on a "general picture".)
    Hi, all debaters,

    I kind of understand your definitions, but I cannot agree that these definitions would help in anyway to define or even to categorize anyone’s “type”. But regardless of your sophisticated reasoning and arguments in this forum, I have big questions of all “typing” theories and their validity and “accuracy” for categorizing most or any humans behaviors, whether it is about Socionics or MBTI.

    My reasons are demonstrated as below:

    - Without Sensing (either Si or Se), there would be NO Intuition, Intuition doesn’t come out of the blue, we at least need a “brain/nerve or sensing system” or simply a physical existence as humans/animals before we get any “intuituition”
    - Without Thinking (either Ti or Te), there would be NO Feeling (this is scientifically approved by psychologist – Feelings are generated After Thinking)
    - Without Sensing e.g. mere physical exsistence, (again Si or Se), there should be NO Thinking or Feeling – people don’t Think or Feel without Sensing something, this “something” maybe visible or invisible to us human eyes or body
    - Intuition should fall only after each of these three elements respectively, or in between all S, T, F, but NOT before, because (if Intuition is about time or passage of time), then without Time (i.e. Intuition), there will be NOTHING existing as approved by Einstein with his theory of Ralativity - can you see the "chicken and egg" kind of contradiction here?

    (*I would like to draw a diagram of what I think the relations/correlated sequence of these 4 or 8 functions, but don’t know how to do it on this forum).

    According to Socionics, The information flow is perceived simultaneously by all the elements i.e. each of the 8 functions of types, and I DISAGREE strongly. We probably all follow certain and possibly same “procedures/order” of these functional reactions (before each subconscious or conscious function prevails itself), but not simultaneously, i.e. without Sensing, we don’t “get” the intuition, and without Thinking, we won’t be able to Feel, and without Feeling, we might not Take certain actions and (presumably) carrying out any Judgments. E/I may be the way, finally, to express these causes of actions including emotional/invisible reactions.

    This is just my own theory. This maybe another reason that, until now, I occasionally (not always) bang the whole “type” thing, and hope that somebody will sort out these contradictions between the modern “type” theories and simple scientific facts like what I have just indicated as above. But since the process of type analysis is so interesting, so I am also and still a fan of your analysis or the type analysis in general.

    **Nevertheless, I do believe more in solid statistic results or personal observations on people’s behavioral patterns, and somehow believe that this maybe (so far) the most effective way for us humans to “categorize” and “predict” others’ types – well, at least, we should try to solve the issue of the “right” sequence/order (of what I have said) with these 8 functions and how this “order” works by obtaining further scientific proofs, before going further analysis.

    Of course, by saying these, I realize I am also objecting Jung’s type theory in some ways or even in general.

    What do you think? I expect “attacks” from you guys a big time! :wink:
    *--*----[Viv]----*--*
    The ENTp Chinese Roast Duck

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VivPhilos
    - Without Sensing (either Si or Se), there would be NO Intuition, Intuition doesn’t come out of the blue, we at least need a “brain/nerve or sensing system” or simply a physical existence as humans/animals before we get any “intuituition”
    - Without Thinking (either Ti or Te), there would be NO Feeling (this is scientifically approved by psychologist – Feelings are generated After Thinking)
    - Without Sensing e.g. mere physical exsistence, (again Si or Se), there should be NO Thinking or Feeling – people don’t Think or Feel without Sensing something, this “something” maybe visible or invisible to us human eyes or body
    Two things:

    Intuition is seen as a mode of perception in it's own right and imo thinking and feeling operate the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by VivPhilos
    According to Socionics, The information flow is perceived simultaneously by all the elements i.e. each of the 8 functions of types, and I DISAGREE strongly. We probably all follow certain and possibly same “procedures/order” of these functional reactions (before each subconscious or conscious function prevails itself), but not simultaneously, i.e. without Sensing, we don’t “get” the intuition, and without Thinking, we won’t be able to Feel, and without Feeling, we might not Take certain actions and (presumably) carrying out any Judgments. E/I may be the way, finally, to express these causes of actions including emotional/invisible reactions.
    I think that is not socionics in general just the Ps which is understandable as that is how they percieve reality inherently. I tend to agree with you more a action reaction physics sort of thing that I cannot correlate as of yet.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tallinn
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Somehow this makes a lot of sence to me that all functions simultaniously take the information in. It will clear up when you will watch how different people interact, for example in conflicting relationship ENTp hurts ISFjs Vulnerable Function and ISFjs Programm function hurts ENTps Vulnerable Function, but at the same time ENTps Standard Function takes care from the ISFjs Suggestive Function and ISFJs Standard Function takes care of the ENTPs Suggestive function. So there is hurt and love at the same time in the play.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Two things:

    Intuition is seen as a mode of perception in it's own right and imo thinking and feeling operate the same.
    This IS indeed the problem I have with "typing", it put all functions "in its own right" separately, which may not be how human behaviours work consciously or unconsciously. What I mean and meant is we probably have ALL our functions operating at equal/different energy level/intensity/lengths and whatever, and so on.., however, following a certain sequence/order.

    I think that is not socionics in general just the Ps which is understandable as that is how they percieve reality inherently. I tend to agree with you more a action reaction physics sort of thing that I cannot correlate as of yet.
    No, this is actually the General Principle of functional analysis of socionics, if you read the link at the very beggining of the forum http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/et/buklet.html#IM, and also, this is what everyone probably takes for granted that this is how human behaviours work, which I disagree. It may seriously mislead all major theories of types.
    *--*----[Viv]----*--*
    The ENTp Chinese Roast Duck

  22. #22

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaido21
    Somehow this makes a lot of sence to me that all functions simultaniously take the information in. It will clear up when you will watch how different people interact, for example in conflicting relationship ENTp hurts ISFjs Vulnerable Function and ISFjs Programm function hurts ENTps Vulnerable Function, but at the same time ENTps Standard Function takes care from the ISFjs Suggestive Function and ISFJs Standard Function takes care of the ENTPs Suggestive function. So there is hurt and love at the same time in the play.
    But it is scientifically proven that humans (maybe animals too) do NOT feel before thinking. This is why David Burns' (I think this is his name) Congnitive Therapy methods work very effectively and is one major area of psychological theories nowadays - it changes the way people think so as to "modify" their way to feel.
    *--*----[Viv]----*--*
    The ENTp Chinese Roast Duck

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tallinn
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually we might be talking different in here. One thing is emotsion like fear or love, but another is feeling in Jungs sence what Socionists named to Ethichs as it made people to confuse. As I understand the Ethical functions are more of the subjective evaluations like I like this person , but do not like that one and this in sence of psychology seems to be more like an attitude, at least I think so. Emotsions are what everione are living through equally, Ethical and Logical types both can feel the fear or love powerfully. And that thinking thing might also be something ellse having similar name to Socionics. Jungs Thinking was named into Logic in Socionics and it seems to me to be something different from that thinking,what you were talking about.

  25. #25
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I also don't know how to post images on this forum, if someone knows how i'd love to hear it.

    Viv, what you are saying seems similar to how I see things. We all seem to be entering something a little new in our understanding of Socionics. There are arguments, but I know I am making progress and the criticism warranted, enjoyed, and stimulating.

    In our wording there may be a lack of distinction, something PTL just mentioned. I'll try my best to be more distinctive, but of course, its tough when you lack all of the information/understanding.

    Here are a few connections:

    +(relative to the ego, relative to the id it is -) functions are all accepting functions. One is "strong", one is "weak". Due to this, it inhibits the weaker + function, making consciousness possible.

    The producing functions are all (-). it appears to be this way to me because the stimulation given by the accepted input is expelled/produced into something. They still, however, exist in strong and weak phases
    .

    Lets say an ISFp and an INTp enter a room(i'll keep it simple by using direct inhibition aka Super-Ego relations, since it corresponds to the super-ego block directly). When these two people encounter one another they see the conscious strengths as ideals because they can do things the other type is consciously less inclined to do(although they do do it). One is strong(ISFp Si, and Fe and INTp Ni and Te) where the other one is weak. If they try to work together on a given project there will be many disagreements because both individuals have a preferred way of perceiving. They perceive realities from different ends of some spectrum. Therefore extra pressure is being put on the weak functions of each individual. Nothing can be accomplished because they can never hear the voice of the other person. Both individuals feel unnecessary and therefore unhappy. There is no actualization. If the inhibition is reversed you get outright conflict. What one type produces the other has absolutely no use for whatsoever, it doesn't accept it.

    If all the forces were equal there would be zero, nothing, just a "gooey mess" of functions. So yes, all the functions do exist at once, we are animals, we are open systems. We all have brains and all the same parts in our brains(hopefully) we have a sensory cortex, a motore cortex, a visual cortex etc... We have all the same "pieces", but somehow these pieces process information differently. Some pieces are weak, some are strong.

    So yes, it does happen all at once, its just that there are strengths and weaknesses.

    For something to be "produced" something first has to be fed. An Si prefers to munch on sensory information, unconsciously attacking(it is unaware of its unconscious Se it exerts which is still strong accepting) That is, you can't expect a fire if you have nothing to burn. That is obvious. Some people are just plain better at things than others. Over time stimulation of different functions causes different outcomes depending upon the strength or weakness of the accepting(fuel) producing(fire) functions.

    now I'm unclear on how to word this, but it's something like this:

    Some rationalize first, as acceptance(take measurable details), then attempt to perceive, as production(apply patterns to experience?). Others perceive first(take in stimulation), then attempt to rationalize(give details based on experience). Of course, when we are in our creative act we can not "switch off" our (+), it is always there and perhaps always interrupts the signal of the (-) functions.

    Take mirrors- So perhaps an INTj easily obsorbs concrete logical products of an ENTp, whereas an ENTp easily obsorbs produced intuition of an INTj. They disagree on the opinions of one anothers conclusions since the (+) of each hinders full realization of the (-) product. They can't fully "accept" what the other is saying since the conclusions is mixed with the strong (+) of each of them.

    But Identicals might have different notions on the same things due to the trail of logic they have followed in life.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    2 things: Thanks for reminding me of that link I do believe in progression but it could be simultaneous progression across neurons I guess... I dunno. Anyway, is T defined the same in Socionics and in that other guys thing? It may just be a definition issue.

  27. #27
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    oh, @ transigent and kaido

    Awesome

  28. #28

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
    oh, @ transigent and kaido

    Awesome
    A roast duct doesn't speak, or she will not stop...

    I will "get back" to you guys with good flowers!
    *--*----[Viv]----*--*
    The ENTp Chinese Roast Duck

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    - Without Sensing (either Si or Se), there would be NO Intuition, Intuition doesn’t come out of the blue, we at least need a “brain/nerve or sensing system” or simply a physical existence as humans/animals before we get any “intuituition”
    - Without Thinking (either Ti or Te), there would be NO Feeling (this is scientifically approved by psychologist – Feelings are generated After Thinking)
    Thinking before feeling? Must have been a T type psychologist that came up with that conclusion :-). Maybe by thinking he meant any form of processing, which also involves feeling. The word thinking is often used in impropper context as well. Some people may say.... I need to visualize the possibilities so let me think. Obviously they are not thinking, but intuiting. So by thinking before feeling, it is obvious that the brain needs to process something (not necesarily logic) in order to resolve a feeling tone. You cant get answers without ballancing the data.

    You can also intuite and sense, without sensory organs! Lets pretend that you had all your sensory organs up until you were 20, then tragically you lost them. You will still have access to stored information which you can use to dirive new information. Intuition also allows you to examine your own perceptions, which will allow you to constantly generate new information or possibilities. Sensing also continues, because you can still imagine spatial structures, you can visualize 3D maps of objects, you can still recall and even generate in your field of vision (even without eyes) images.

    Socionics relations are all about people agreeing with each other or disagreeing because of their subjective goggles, after both parties realize that they do indeed have different goggles on, they can get allong (maybe not be stimulated by one another) but will coexist peacefully (esp if they have no reason to hate specific types of people).
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    Thinking before feeling? Must have been a T type psychologist that came up with that conclusion :-).
    Well, in order to determine if something makes you feel good or bad, you first have to find out what "it" is, and how "it" has affected your life before.
    No... that is how T types think... one of the most relieving things in the world is to just feel what you feel without even trying to analyze it.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Understood I just dispute that logic and emotion are T and F.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    Understood I just dispute that logic and emotion are T and F.
    Would you have time to explain, now or later. I have been thinking about these issues lately but I can't really figure it out very well.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  35. #35

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    Understood I just dispute that logic and emotion are T and F.
    Would you have time to explain, now or later. I have been thinking about these issues lately but I can't really figure it out very well.
    F seems to be the thing that regulates emotion or assigns it to various things while T seems to be the thing that regulates logical assignment and gives it to ideas. The E and I just determine what the "objects" are. F seems to anthropomophize things (even inanimate things). T tends to do the opposite.

    That's why INTJs seem to be more prone to insanity. Without Fe input they remove all meaning and emotion from everything and that causes insanity. E_T_ types don't have this problem because they meet more people so are more likely to get the F they need.

    I_F_ types do the same thing but with logic. Luckily for them you can get logical input apart from interacting with people (reading!). You can't get F without people at least not real F.

  37. #37
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    we're all prone to insanity.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Very true but it seems like those not getting their support functions are more so and the more introverted you are the less ccontact you have with those things. I feel really sorry for IxTPs to have a hidden agenda that requires people and can never be satisfied alone. At least you can create Si on your own same for T it seems but Fi Se.... I think this hurts them a lot.

  39. #39
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigient
    Transigient
    Also, did you ever notice that "thinking" will only come into play when your energy levels are low, or you are depressed? When your conciousness is stimulated to higher levels, you do not want to "think" at all. I think that what it comes down to is a Concentration/Energy balance of the psyche, where if Concentration>Energy, you are xxTx, and if Energy>Concentration, you are xxFx, and Concentration+Energy is your "intellegence/insight/life/charisma/etc."
    I think the low energy of thinking did not necessarily come from thinking itself - as you said, it comes from "depression", and depression if a negative form of "feeling" other than thinking, and "feeling" maybe, as I have suggested, the result of "thinking. So, you have somehow "proved" my own proposed version/point that THINKING comes before FEELING!

    For these types, they "expand" thier conciousness into space rather than time. This is why they live in the "here and now" beause they tend to stay in one space, expanded into 3-dimensions, while intuitive types use thier mind to expand into the 4th dimension.
    Ah, I like the last sentence of conclusion - it says INTUITION maybe the 4th dimension after the 3-d. So, as I said, Intuition may exist only AFTER S, T, F, not before.

    Now, don't you guys see my possible theory of "sequence/order" of the functions? You've constantly used this principle during your analysis. :wink:

    The white functions are his contact with the mind and body, and the black functions are his contact with the environment and others. They are ALL active and continuously zipping back and forth. However, your soul, being the fickle emporer as he is, favors some messengers over others, and this is where the "type theory" comes in. He gives the messengers that he favors more money in which to throw into the "life pool", and these messengers therfore have more control over you, and are more integral to your being.

    As a matter of fact, and as I have just said above, I have got some different/opposite conclusions from yours.

    Sorry, Transigient, I may have argued too hard, but this is FUN, isn't it? hehehe...

  40. #40

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oooops, that (Guest) was me, forgot to loggin again ....

    ==================

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigient
    Also, did you ever notice that "thinking" will only come into play when your energy levels are low, or you are depressed? When your conciousness is stimulated to higher levels, you do not want to "think" at all. I think that what it comes down to is a Concentration/Energy balance of the psyche, where if Concentration>Energy, you are xxTx, and if Energy>Concentration, you are xxFx, and Concentration+Energy is your "intellegence/insight/life/charisma/etc."
    I think the low energy of thinking did not necessarily come from thinking itself - as you said, it comes from "depression", and depression if a negative form of "feeling" other than thinking, and "feeling" maybe, as I have suggested, the result of "thinking" - in fact, this is the major principle of Congnitive Therapy i.e. negative thinking leads to negative feeling, which produces depression, not the other way round. So, you have somehow "proved" my own proposed version/point that THINKING comes before FEELING!

    For these types, they "expand" thier conciousness into space rather than time. This is why they live in the "here and now" beause they tend to stay in one space, expanded into 3-dimensions, while intuitive types use thier mind to expand into the 4th dimension.
    Ah, I like the last sentence of conclusion - it says INTUITION maybe the 4th dimension after the 3-d (but psychologically speaking, N may also come after S or T or F individually). So, as I said, Intuition may exist only AFTER S or T or F, not before. But it is possible that without Intuition, no other functions exist, that is, if Intuition is defined in the "physical sense" like Einstein's. However, I am not yet sure Intuition should be classified/defined this way, same as Pedro has suggested earlier.

    The white functions are his contact with the mind and body, and the black functions are his contact with the environment and others. They are ALL active and continuously zipping back and forth. However, your soul, being the fickle emporer as he is, favors some messengers over others, and this is where the "type theory" comes in. He gives the messengers that he favors more money in which to throw into the "life pool", and these messengers therfore have more control over you, and are more integral to your being.
    As a matter of fact, and as I have just said above, I have got some different/opposite conclusions from yours, the "chain reactions" of functions work more from within, after Sensing has taken in information, than from outside. The "sequential reactions" may take place in a way that we humans cannot really notice with our eyes or physical senses, it may happen within such short time that we cannot know it!

    Sorry, Transigient, I may have argued too hard, but this is FUN, isn't it? hehehe...
    *--*----[Viv]----*--*
    The ENTp Chinese Roast Duck

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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