But if you exactly know what you believe, there can't be a problem to write it down. Whether you know or don't know Ashton's opinion, it shouldn't change anything for you in any case. If you find out that you agree on some things, what would be wrong about that?Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
So are you just going to pick on his formulation instead of making your own?The problem is, I already know what I believe, but I don't know what he believes. It's a lot easier to clearly distinguish my own beliefs if I know what I'm distinguishing them from.
It's not about others' explaining themselves to you, no more than it is about you explaining your views to others.
Krig, why would you need to distinguish your understanding and approach to socionics from anyone else's? I would think that by describing your understandings and your approach, and him describing his, and whoever else describing theirs, and so on....that people can see that there are a variety of understandings and approaches.
It would also allow us to see if there's perhaps differences in how different quadras approach socionics, or if there's a difference between say static approaches vs dynamic approaches, etc etc. But we won't know these things if we don't have the various inputs to draw from.
-------
Not just to Krig,
I dunno, maybe the feeling of Risk is too great? Whoever goes first would feel more vulnerable than whoever goes next. The second one has the opportunity to insert 'stabs' at the first one, and such. Maybe, when you have two...opinionated?...people like this, such as Krig and Ashton, maybe they could designate a neutral 'holder', who will hold the info in secret until the 'holder' has both (or more) descriptions...and who will then post them both at the same time. Would something like this reduce the feeling of risk and vulnerability?
or not, I dunno, heh.
Like Aiss pointed out, it's not about Krig vs Ashton vs whoever.
It's just a description of one of many understandings and one of many approaches.
C'mon people. We have a chance to do something sciency with this.
How cool is that??
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I really don't see the point of doing it that way, as the end result should be the same either way. It's just more natural for me to work backwards from distinctions to descriptions. But hey, whatever, I'll play along. It'll just take longer to properly write it up.
Quaero Veritas.
User:Aestrivex/essays/some model questions
http://www.socionics.ws/wiki/index.p...odel_questions
Tbh I want to, but no type description I write is going to fit anyone because it's just going to be about me and it will get boo'ed at. So I should refrain.
Although aestrivex's ILI description sounds like me, but I have doubts if its up to correct terminology lol.
Krig, I know what you're saying about distinguishing your ideas from someone else's. It's like you don't even know that you have a particular assumption, until you see that somebody else has a different assumption, and you discover that the assumption exists, and then you can realize your own assumption is 'Not That.'
Like if you travel to a different country, you suddenly notice all the cultural things that you never questioned before, that you weren't aware could be done differently. It will be all these little small things that you take for granted that it never occurred to you to question.
People get in the habit of thinking a certain way, seeing things a certain way, assuming certain things, and the best way to become aware of what those assumptions are is to see someone who has very different assumptions. It's difficult to see assumptions that are non-controversial, assumptions no one is questioning. It's like they're just not there at all.
It might even be helpful to look outside of socionics into some completely random school of thought, something else in psychology, some other belief system, something scientific, something that has nothing to do with socionics at all.
Like, some belief systems assume that people have total, or almost total, control of who they are. Or they believe that personalities develop as a result of life experiences. Socionics assumes something different, that you don't have complete control over all the aspects of your personality.
Of course, that may be too vague and general, not at the level of specifics that you need.
If someone builds a thing, then I'll write down my methods in it (I tried Google Docs, it didn't work awesome)
do it do it do it
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Lol, especially at the Joy school.The communist school: there is just one personality type. Get over it
The capitalist school: there are 7000 000 000 different personality types. Get over it
The anarchist school: we don't need personality types. Get over it
The banana republic school: give me some cash and I'll help you choose with your personality type. Get over it
The Gilly school: personality types must be discussed every day. Get over it
The Joy school: personality type changes every year. Get over it
The Idiot school: I'm the dual of the girl I'm dating. Get over it
The Darth Vader school: You don't know the power of the opposite quadra
The Master Yoda school: Don't flip you Reinin Dichotomies, stay in the light side
The Obi Wan Kenobi school: Use, Luke Skywalker
The Chuck Norris school: Roundhouse kick first, type later
Exactly! Without something to compare myself to, I feel like I have to not only carefully examine all of my own assumptions, but also all possible alternative assumptions, so that I can clearly distinguish my own beliefs from those. That's way more work than just directly distinguishing my own system from one or two others, and will likely lead to my overlooking some things that I take for granted and didn't realize other people disagreed with, which will mean a longer process of error-correction afterwards.
But hey, whatever.
Quaero Veritas.
I have begun answering the questions, and will be filling it out as time/energy/focus permits.
my t16t Socionics Questionnaire answers
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I finished an outline yesterday; I just have to flesh it out some and I'll post it. That may take a day or two, depending on how much I procrastinate.
Glancing briefly over what you've written, Ashton, it's honestly a little difficult to understand what you're talking about, because we appear to be operating from different basic assumptions. I'd say the differences between our views of socionics are getting close to the magnitude of the differences between socionics and the MBTT.
Quaero Veritas.
I'll do it. I just need to carve out some time for it.
I've started working on it. Expect something finished and worth reading in a month or so, lol.
For one thing, the idea that the IEs are passive preconscious filters than cannot be consciously "used" is quite the opposite of my understanding, which is that the IEs are much like computer processors, each specialized to process a certain type of information. Each one runs automatically "in the background" in an unconscious or partially conscious mode, until focused on and raised into awareness by the consciousness. Due to the way information flows in the psyche, some IEs (the Mental Ring) are focused on more frequently than others (the Vital Ring), but the only way to become consciously aware of a certain type of information is to consciously focus on that function and "use" that IE. So to say "I was logically analyzing something just now," is the same as saying "I was consciously processingHm. So, you profess that you don't quite understand what I'm talking about, yet you're content to claim that our views must be systemically divergent. Interesting.information in my
Your understanding of valued and unvalued functions also appears quite different from mine.
So while I may not be able to wrap my mind around how your system works in detail, from what I do understand it does appear quite distinct from my own.
Quaero Veritas.
The more I examine this issue, the more apparent it seems to me that the root difference between the two broad schools of thought on this board is the definition of the Information Elements.
One group (mine) defines the IEs as categories of information which are processed separately in the different functions. Consequently this group tightly associates specific behaviours and aspects of life to specific IEs, e.g., cooking = Si, laughter = Fe, power struggles = Se, etc. Logically, since everyone is capable of cooking, laughing, etc., this would mean that all types manifest all Information Elements in their behaviour in different ways, which leads to a whole host of other theoretical differences.
If I'm understanding correctly, the other group (Ashton and others) defines the IEs as "filters" through which all information is processed. Consequently this group views specific behavioural associations like "cooking = Si" and "laughter = Fe" as overly simplistic stereotypes, since an Si type would cook "in an Si way", an Ni type would could "in an Ni way", etc. Logically, this would make it theoretically possible for types to simply not use certain elements, in the same way that a camera doesn't need to use every possible filter, which makes views such as "types don't express their unvalued functions" logically possible.
Without getting into an argument as to which view is correct, would you all say that this is an accurate summary?
Quaero Veritas.
from what I understand that doesn't sound off. I'm disappointed though because you've stressed these differences in approach at pretty much every opportunity and now there's this project underway that I'd think you would be happy to take part in because these differences seem so important to you. but when it comes down to it you skirted around and asked others to do it first and now you're writing a neat little summary that highlights the differences you notice. but you haven't done the legwork yourself. it doesn't seem fair. especially since you're so quick to use this issue as a debate tactic.
you're still planning on doing this,right?
I'm in the middle of writing up a big long thing, but it takes time and effort. I'm more interested in pinpointing the differences than explaining every detail of what everyone believes, so I was hoping to find a shortcut. But since no-one seems interested in that, I'm quite willing to put in the extra work. It's turning out to be an illuminating exercise.
Quaero Veritas.
Placeholder.
Don't worry man I feel the same way. Ashton created the outline, so he MUST have some sense of what would be adequate to write down for each section. Someone else might make their's too brief, too lengthy, or slightly not what he had in mind.
There is a practical benefit to writing yours down first, but then you have to have a good sense of what people are willing to read, and also the energy to create a comprehensive outline of your beliefs.
*edit: read down a bit and you started to get a bit stupe, I think you should create an outline now that he has posted one.
Made this pic in paint awhile go; I'll repost it now that it is relevant again, just in case anyone needs a graphical representation of what Ashton is saying. Don't pay attention to the specific arrows, it was created in 2 minutes.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Last edited by ArchonAlarion; 01-22-2012 at 06:29 PM.
The end is nigh
Those are very good illustrations. But I hold with the 1st.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
