A/I Socionics

[Igxfl]

I have here an entirely unrelated, incompatible version of socionics.

It has always seemed odd to me that thinking opposes feeling and sensing opposes intuition. This implies that T/F are somehow capable of doing the same jobs, as are S/N. However, from my own observations, it seems more common that T/N are more likely to do the same jobs, as are S/F. T/N both deal in highly processed information, taking what is already known and refining it. "Oh, it all fits into a pattern," or "If X is true and Y is true, Z must be false." S/F make judgements (in the colloquial sense) about various things and ideas out of nothing. "This is comfortable," "I want that," or "That is morally wrong." These ideas, though valid, don't come from anywhere - the function throws them forward automatically, and the reasoning behind them cannot really be explained, only rationalized. In contrast, I don't see how T/N can really have any desires or goals in themselves. Even the desire to accumulate knowledge has to originate from somewhere - desire cannot be deduced. A pure NT would probably mope around in a lifelong existentialist stupor.

Thus, let's try dividing the functions into Abstract/Involved, rather than Judging/Perceiving. Everyone relies upon one abstract function and one involved function of opposite attitude, like ISE, LSI, or ELI.


Seems like a reasonable system?
Any insights?
What's your A/I Socionics type?

[Trevor]

It has always seemed odd to me that thinking opposes feeling and sensing opposes intuition. This implies that T/F are somehow capable of doing the same jobs, as are S/N.

I fail to see the implication. Care to elaborate?

[mirrorsoul]

That doesn't make sense to me.

I've always seen as S and T being the "objective" functions, with N and F being the "subjective" functions.

[Igxfl]

More elaboration, as requested:

Your goals and values are determined by your involved function.
follows immediate drive/impulse/will towards a particular objective.
attempts to increase comfort, security, and pleasure.
bases goals on the emotional responses of the moment.
evaluates things based on an implicit moral code, in which things are tagged as good or bad.

/ oppose. Those who value force of will and immediate action towards objectives are more likely to ignore positive emotional content, and vice versa.
/ oppose. The more one values personal safety and comfort the less importance one places on strict codes of values and vice versa.

It occurs to me here that E and I involved functions work more impulsively or stably, respectively.


Your thoughts, methods, and communications are determined by your abstract function.
These are often focused on fulfilling the above.
uses direct, reliable methods to achieve goals. Most ideas will have been extensively tested or learned from a trusted source.
deduces what will likely happen by extrapolating from known principles. Ideas can be unusual, but must be explicable.
Connects situations to others by analogy, things that follow similar patterns are considered similar even if they appear very different. Ideas are often highly experimental or speculative.
Lets ideas well up via semi-conscious association. Ideas are the most unusual, and often cannot be easily explained afterwards.

/ oppose. A preference for reliability and certain effectiveness obviously conflicts with experimentalism and discovery.
/ oppose. A preference for comprehensive understanding of fully explicable ideas conflicts with processing ideas via association and emerging subconscious residue.

Everybody gets one involved and one abstract. For example, uses direct, reliable methods and attempts efficiency, directing these efforts towards objectives determined by moral sentiments. I suppose you could figure out the rest of an LEE's functions by deduction if you wanted to.

[Trevor]

Hmm, i've never looked at functions that way. I really don't know what to say.

[EyeSeeCold]

This seems flawed in my opinion. What do you say to types / quadras that have both conflicting functions?

[Igxfl]

This seems flawed in my opinion. What do you say to types / quadras that have both conflicting functions?

Oh, it's far stranger than that. I'm suggesting that each type have a base consisting of one involved and one abstract function, rather than one judging and one perceiving.
Thus, the quadras would be redefined to , , , and . None of the redefined quadras have IEs that, in my definitions above, conflict.
This is why I wrote "I have here an entirely unrelated, incompatible version of socionics," at the top of the OP.

[Creepy-]

Seems to me that having two rational or irrational elements in one block would make a type extremely unbalanced.