Beta Ni as the function of choice, reflection, and critique

[tcaudilllg]

The beta Ni function, as Krig has reminded us, is defined by Gulenko as the intent to avoid past mistakes. In my view, beta Ni is made up of eight information processors which allow us to conceptualize choice and compare choices made.

The IM element processed by beta Ni is choice. Choices are related to each other in terms of their influence in comparison to another available choice. If the influence is more positive than the other choice, then the choice is comparatively positive. If the influence is negative, then the choice is comparatively negative.

How is the state of influence, for the positive or the negative, judged? The answer is relative to progress towards an idealized state, a positive potential outcome (in socionics terms, the relationship between delta Ne aspects). If a choice realizes positive potential, then it is positive. If it realizes negative potential, then it is negative. Potentials are, of course, judged relative to each other. Properly, one speaks of "scenarios", complexes of potential states that may be positive or negative. Starting from a state of observed negative potentials, we say a choice is "right" if the resulting outcome is a state whereat the situation is more positive than it previously was. Correspondingly, we say it is wrong if the situation is comparatively more negative. Of course, these judgments are completely relative and reflect our feelings about elements of the potential scenario and current situation.

Looking at choice from a subelements point of view, we can perceive of choice as a change of destiny with regard to a specific event (a gamma Ni aspect). If an event is allowed to pass, then the state of the permissitivity is positive; if not, its permissitivity is negative. A change in our decision to let the event stand or not, is the making of a choice.

I'm looking for a specific word in place of "event permissivity", but it escapes me. Has it even been coined...?

Continuing, we reflect on a choice when we evaluate it based on the positivity of its outcome -- that is, the actual state that resulted compared with what we believed the choice would result in.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Who is this "we" you keep alluding to, your socionic co-conspirator and rabble rouser against the forces of conservatardism?

[EyeSeeCold]

Who is this "we" you keep alluding to, your socionic co-conspirator and rabble rouser against the forces of conservatardism?

I think you're introjecting.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I think you're introjecting.

You've got a new word and can't stop abusing it.

tcaud makes frequent use of "we" when outlining his socionics ideas, and also when he's railing against political elites who've failed to read his mind and adopt his positions. In the first case he appears to either be aping Gulenko outright to make himself feel more socionicky, or merely adopting a common writing convention of joint research papers. In the second case he's hoping or assuming that others are in alignment with his desire to see political evildoers fall, or possibly appealing to the true spirits of the cartoon characters in the videogames his psychological theories are drawn from.

And there's nothing in your description that's unique to Beta NFs.

[Slacker]

I think it's the royal "we".

[tcaudilllg]

Take your "we" discussion to another thread. This thread is only for the discussion of beta Ni.

[rat1]

You've got a new word and can't stop abusing it.

tcaud makes frequent use of "we" when outlining his socionics ideas, and also when he's railing against political elites who've failed to read his mind and adopt his positions. In the first case he appears to either be aping Gulenko outright to make himself feel more socionicky, or merely adopting a common writing convention of joint research papers. In the second case he's hoping or assuming that others are in alignment with his desire to see political evildoers fall, or possibly appealing to the true spirits of the cartoon characters in the videogames his psychological theories are drawn from.

Shut the fuck up.

I'm looking for a specific word in place of "event permissivity", but it escapes me. Has it even been coined...?

Imperatives.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Take your "we" discussion to another thread. This thread is only for the discussion of beta Ni.

"We" want to know what in your description isn't ubiquitous to all humans. It's just common sense that people seek to avoid repeating errors, that negative is negative, and positive is positive. Unless you've got secret definitions for the plain-speech terms above, what you've laid out says nothing that isn't self-evident to anyone with a pulse.

[rat1]

In the strict sense he's talking about socionics, not humans. Still I get a stronger sense of imperative from Betas. Tcaud is right about this.

[Korpsy Knievel]

He's talking about socionics, not humans.

Now it all makes perfect sense.

[rat1]

And what's your type?

[Korpsy Knievel]

And what's your type?

Shut the fuck up.

^

[tcaudilllg]

Those who don't understand model A should not comment on advanced socionics topics like the nature of the functions. I mean really understanding of the basics is expected.

I use the term "we" as a general means of engaging the audience and establishing rapport.

"Imperative"... I think you are right.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Those who don't understand model A should not comment on advanced socionics topics like the nature of the functions. I mean really understanding of the basics is expected.
.

You're trailing off into model tcaud, not dealing strictly with model A.