Smilexian socionics: Si column

[Smilingeyes]

Yes, this thread started, because I was bored.

Now, I'm going to keep it going, again, because I'm bored.

I'm going to write about stuff that bugs me and stuff I feel people are fucking up when they think about socionics. Maybe I'll write about something else too. It's a column. It's about socionics.

Feel free to suggest names for the column.

[CuriousSoul]

What are the functions really?
No one seems to know.
And how to account for the seemingly permanent differences between representatives of the same type.
"Enlighten us, your excellency, enlighten us."

[Mariano Rajoy]

how does socionics reconcile our here and now experience of consciousness with the functions?

[Smilingeyes]

Dear Curious,

Fuck you for your ability to get a rise out of me.
And I mean that in the kindest and friendliest way.

[Mariano Rajoy]

is the psyche really differentiated as augusta claims? what evidence do we have for believing this?

[Smilingeyes]

Okay, I'll give you an answer... just wait a moment ...
I didn't want to pollute my the first reaction I had with something... sosionical.

What are the functions really?
No one seems to know.
And how to account for the seemingly permanent differences between representatives of the same type.

Functions are abstractions. They are what creates the social interactions. They are best defined as such. But there are some approximations that seem to work better than others. If you understand them as suppositions of expected behaviour and reasons for such, you seem to do okay.

Do you see it when Joy, Transigent, Blake, Discojoe or I change our type? Do you still see the parts that stay the same? Well there you have the difference between manners that are directly related to type and manners that aren't. A lot of stuff is not vital for the personality type. So if there's stuff that doesn't need to change when one changes one's type... why couldn't it be different in individuals of the same type?

[CuriousSoul]

Dear Curious,

Fuck you for your ability to get a rise out of me.
And I mean that in the kindest and friendliest way.

Can I be an honorary Gamma? :wink:

[Smilingeyes]

Dear Curious,

Fuck you for your ability to get a rise out of me.
And I mean that in the kindest and friendliest way.

Can I be an honorary Gamma? :wink:

Ask a gamma for that.

[Smilingeyes]

how does socionics reconcile our here and now experience of consciousness with the functions?

Sounds profound. Like to elaborate on what the hell you mean with that question?

[Smilingeyes]

is the psyche really differentiated as augusta claims? what evidence do we have for believing this?

Augusta was pretty damn smart. But she also had the habit of making shit up for kicks when she wasn't sure about what she was talking about. Is there some specific claim of Augustas' that interests you?

[Mariano Rajoy]

the question, how does socionics reconcile our here and now experience of consciousness with the functions, is similar to the question, is the psyche really differentiated as augusta claims. what i mean by that is, if the psyche is differentiated, then why is our here and now experience of consciousness a unity?

[Smilingeyes]

the question, how does socionics reconcile our here and now experience of consciousness with the functions, is similar to the question, is the psyche really differentiated as augusta claims. what i mean by that is, if the psyche is differentiated, then why is our here and now experience of consciousness a unity?

I'm still not quite following you. Why couldn't parts form a united whole or on the other hand a whole be analyzed in parts?

(I'm making a guess that you are referring in some way to Augusta's informational channels of the brain -thingy. I've yet to see any proof for it and as a theory it seems to be mostly connected to the irrelevant bullshit aspects of socionics so I prefer to not think about it at all.)

[Kristiina]

Dear Curious,

Fuck you for your ability to get a rise out of me.
And I mean that in the kindest and friendliest way.

Can I be an honorary Gamma? :wink:

I would let you be gamma any day! But gamma is a pretty secluded club. Hint for when you apply: They let ISFjs join fairly easily. :wink:

[NekoBus]

the question, how does socionics reconcile our here and now experience of consciousness with the functions, is similar to the question, is the psyche really differentiated as augusta claims. what i mean by that is, if the psyche is differentiated, then why is our here and now experience of consciousness a unity?

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? Do you feel schizophrenic when you do? Can you not think within the context of a feeling? Do feelings not inform the directions of your thoughts? You and most of the rest of this board overemphisize the functions in isolation. They are just shorthand for things we are so intimately familiar with that by giving them names we gain insight of comparison at the risk of exoticizing and over-reifying.

[Kristiina]

I'm gonna be totally rude and ask a question about .

When is Si strong and good and when is it overly sensitive? Where is the border between healthy strong senses and unhealthy sensitivity?

[Smilingeyes]

I'm gonna be totally rude and ask a question about .

When is Si strong and good and when is it overly sensitive? Where is the border between healthy strong senses and unhealthy sensitivity?

Use more lube.

EDIT: And I thought this one was the best answer I gave all day.
Point being... What's overly sensitive anyway? Over what? Too much for what? Exactly who the fig is going to decide what's too much sensitivity? You are. If you feel numb, there's too little, if it hurts there's too much. If you feel that you succeed with the senses you got, good for you.

And strong healthy senses are not a function anyway.

Okay... that's it... I'm bored out of my skull. I'm taking a nap and then I'm going to use my sick leave for reading about a kid called Spider Jerusalem.

[Mariano Rajoy]

the question, how does socionics reconcile our here and now experience of consciousness with the functions, is similar to the question, is the psyche really differentiated as augusta claims. what i mean by that is, if the psyche is differentiated, then why is our here and now experience of consciousness a unity?

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? Do you feel schizophrenic when you do? Can you not think within the context of a feeling? Do feelings not inform the directions of your thoughts? You and most of the rest of this board overemphisize the functions in isolation. They are just shorthand for things we are so intimately familiar with that by giving them names we gain insight of comparison at the risk of exoticizing and over-reifying.

that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

[Smilingeyes]

the question, how does socionics reconcile our here and now experience of consciousness with the functions, is similar to the question, is the psyche really differentiated as augusta claims. what i mean by that is, if the psyche is differentiated, then why is our here and now experience of consciousness a unity?

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? Do you feel schizophrenic when you do? Can you not think within the context of a feeling? Do feelings not inform the directions of your thoughts? You and most of the rest of this board overemphisize the functions in isolation. They are just shorthand for things we are so intimately familiar with that by giving them names we gain insight of comparison at the risk of exoticizing and over-reifying.

that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

An important point actually.
Made me happy.

Thing is, there is no basis for claiming that such an appropriation happens of a neurological level. Nevertheless it does seem to happen on the cognitive level. Meaning... The appropriation is something of a useful illusion. The totality of the "thoughts" that happen in the brain can never be understood conciously.

[Mariano Rajoy]

the question, how does socionics reconcile our here and now experience of consciousness with the functions, is similar to the question, is the psyche really differentiated as augusta claims. what i mean by that is, if the psyche is differentiated, then why is our here and now experience of consciousness a unity?

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? Do you feel schizophrenic when you do? Can you not think within the context of a feeling? Do feelings not inform the directions of your thoughts? You and most of the rest of this board overemphisize the functions in isolation. They are just shorthand for things we are so intimately familiar with that by giving them names we gain insight of comparison at the risk of exoticizing and over-reifying.

that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

An important point actually.
Made me happy.

Thing is, there is no basis for claiming that such an appropriation happens of a neurological level. Nevertheless it does seem to happen on the cognitive level. Meaning... The appropriation is something of a useful illusion. The totality of the "thoughts" that happen in the brain can never be understood conciously.

i think there is a basis for claiming that appropriation occurs on a neurological level, namely the scientifically accepted notion that all cognition has a neurological counterpart. i will go further and say that the appropriation and subsequent being are not the illusion or facade, but instead the concepts that precede such being are the facade.

[Smilingeyes]

An important point actually.
Made me happy.

Thing is, there is no basis for claiming that such an appropriation happens of a neurological level. Nevertheless it does seem to happen on the cognitive level. Meaning... The appropriation is something of a useful illusion. The totality of the "thoughts" that happen in the brain can never be understood conciously.

i think there is a basis for claiming that appropriation occurs on a neurological level, namely the scientifically accepted notion that all cognition has a neurological counterpart. i will go further and say that the appropriation and subsequent being are not the illusion or facade, but instead the concepts that precede such being are the facade.

Misunderstood me slightly there. Yes the cognitive process of appropriation has a neurological counterpart but there is no process in which all neurological activity itself is appropriated. One is only aware of a very small part of the things that are happening in the brain at any given moment... yet many of these same things are vital to our functionality (while some others are utterly insignificant).

That one can not be aware of all of one's brain functions is basically a mathematically true thing as... To model the total functionality of a brain the whole of the active brain is needed and all it's synapses are required for this modelling. Yet parts of the brain are needed to act in other tasks that are not involved in cognitive modelling of the actual brain functions. Therefore there are less resources available for cognitive modelling of the brain function than would be needed for the task. And thus the brain can never cognitively fully understand itself.

[Mariano Rajoy]

i will agree with that. understanding is never exhausted.

[Arcanum]

Smilex, don't you have any people to save as a doctor?

This has to be one of the strangest threads... I think you guys were smoking a little Mary Jane before posting, no offense :wink:. I am not buying the whole functions thing really. Why not mention the reason why there are exactly 8 functions, and exactly 16 types?

[Arcanum]

Kraus wrote:

Because some people use the same functions in a much different manner?

I understand that different individuals behave in different ways. I also recognize that there are people who act similarly as well. But, how can you then just categorize functions? It appears very crude to me that there are only 8 functions. The simplicity and evenness in it can only make me suspicious.

[Arcanum]

lol...

It does appear that the inhabitants of this planet have too much time on their hands.

[Dioklecian]

Okay, I'll give you an answer... just wait a moment ...
I didn't want to pollute my the first reaction I had with something... sosionical.

What are the functions really?
No one seems to know.
And how to account for the seemingly permanent differences between representatives of the same type.

Functions are abstractions. They are what creates the social interactions. They are best defined as such. But there are some approximations that seem to work better than others. If you understand them as suppositions of expected behaviour and reasons for such, you seem to do okay.

Do you see it when Joy, Transigent, Blake, Discojoe or I change our type? Do you still see the parts that stay the same? Well there you have the difference between manners that are directly related to type and manners that aren't. A lot of stuff is not vital for the personality type. So if there's stuff that doesn't need to change when one changes one's type... why couldn't it be different in individuals of the same type?

I disagree with this Ni description of functions as Ni, functions are Ti categorizations.

[Smilingeyes]

Smilex, don't you have any people to save as a doctor?

This has to be one of the strangest threads... I think you guys were smoking a little Mary Jane before posting, no offense :wink:. I am not buying the whole functions thing really. Why not mention the reason why there are exactly 8 functions, and exactly 16 types?

No. I don't have patients. I mainly do research.

There are 8 functions because Jung found 8 functions. Of course it seems that each function has at least a creating and accepting version of it, and also a concrete and an abstract version of it so it would be more correct to say that there are 32 functions. But why stop there? There are further distinctions between individuals in how they use their functions so why not make say each person has their own function? Basically it was just decided that a certain distinction merits to be separated as "a function" while other distinctions don't merit to be called separate functions. So the reasons are historical.

Same goes for types.

But this threas is still boring...

hmm...

Except for this:

I disagree with this Ni description of functions as Ni, functions are Ti categorizations.

This is weirdly hilarious. I hesitate to ask for clarification because I think understanding the sentence would spoil the hilarity. Oh, but I know you'll clarify it anyway... Damn... Do your worst!

[Rocky]

Functions are mearly observable behaviors.

[Kristiina]

I'm gonna be totally rude and ask a question about .

When is Si strong and good and when is it overly sensitive? Where is the border between healthy strong senses and unhealthy sensitivity?

Use more lube.

EDIT: And I thought this one was the best answer I gave all day.
Point being... What's overly sensitive anyway? Over what? Too much for what? Exactly who the fig is going to decide what's too much sensitivity? You are. If you feel numb, there's too little, if it hurts there's too much. If you feel that you succeed with the senses you got, good for you.

And strong healthy senses are not a function anyway.

Okay... that's it... I'm bored out of my skull. I'm taking a nap and then I'm going to use my sick leave for reading about a kid called Spider Jerusalem.

Haha! I like your answer.
My senses are strong. Too strong senses are a problem when I eat mildly spicey food (according to everyone else) and I'm in pain and tears. Or when there is some mild background noise (according to others) and I'm distracted by all the noise or when it's nice and quiet (according to introverts) and I'm distracted by the buzzing sounds of electronical devices. And lets not forget being overly sensitive to temperature, smells, etc.
This kind of sensitivity is , right? Everyone can hear the TV buzzing (when it's on "mute"), but not everyone is bothered or distracted by it.

[Rocky]

I posted this about a little while ago...

I'd like to add that isn't always about "comfort", but rather deriving stimuli from objects as well being "efficient". realizes that it often times has to jeapardize it's current state in order to readjust itself in order for a better outcome (at least for -), which is why - can be associated with absorbing negative sensations .

So in that sense, I will agree that (-?) can concentrate during unpleasent times and keep itself under control... as opposed to being danty litte whiny bitches like you ENxJs are.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I posted this about a little while ago...

I'd like to add that isn't always about "comfort", but rather deriving stimuli from objects as well being "efficient". realizes that it often times has to jeapardize it's current state in order to readjust itself in order for a better outcome (at least for -), which is why - can be associated with absorbing negative sensations .

So in that sense, I will agree that (-?) can concentrate during unpleasent times and keep itself under control... as opposed to being danty litte whiny bitches like you ENxJs are.

I was at Washington Park a few weeks ago and it began to rain HARD out of nowhere. My friend and I quickly found that the park was quickly vacated. There were a few left (including this one weird girl that we could see through her soaked blouse!). I then told my friend, "You can really tell who the true Oregonians are. These are my kind of people." So many weiners afraid of the rain lol.

I remember in highschool, I would be distraught by the guys and gals that thought they were too dainty to get the bottom of their shoes wet. We has a California-style campus so each main building was connected from the exterior. I just remember thinking, "Ughhh, what wimps. It's a centimeter of water!"

[Rocky]

Well, we all know you're ISFP anyways...

[Creepy-pokeball]

Well, we all know you're ISFP anyways...

That's what I want to be in my next life time. It sounds fun

[Mariano Rajoy]

Functions are mearly observable behaviors.

there is no explicit relationship between the functions and behavior in socionics. the methodological behaviorists are anti-information processing. if you say functions are merely observable behaviors, then socionics has nothing to offer as it lacks the rigor and method of the behaviorists that came before. reducing the functions to a taxonomy of behavior does not correspond to actual research done by behaviorists; the behaviorist research does not correlate with socionics.

and reducing the functions to observable thoughts/feelings doesn't work either, so don't try.

[Smilingeyes]

Okay, that was mildly humorous. Especially the strange rant about how, though basically every socionist uses behaviourism to type people (except the one's that use neophrenology) there's supposedly no connection with socionics and behaviourism... right... sure...

So... Information processing... Exactly how many socionists type people through aptitude tests?

And if cognitive thought doesn't come into it... anyone care to explain the decent results people get through taking standardized self-appraisal tests like Lytov's?

Oh, and Rocky, you twit, there are no ENxJs in this thread.

*edit* Strike that.. FDG's here now.

Also... since you're about halfway between ISTp and INTp... using yourself for self-analysis of doesn't really bring that good results.

[FDG]

I posted this about a little while ago...

I'd like to add that isn't always about "comfort", but rather deriving stimuli from objects as well being "efficient". realizes that it often times has to jeapardize it's current state in order to readjust itself in order for a better outcome (at least for -), which is why - can be associated with absorbing negative sensations .

So in that sense, I will agree that (-?) can concentrate during unpleasent times and keep itself under control... as opposed to being danty litte whiny bitches like you ENxJs are.

No shit. I am actually the opposite, everybody always whining that it's cold, hot, painful, fatigue, wet, humid, not comfortable, too big (whoops) and I'm there that I don't feel anything. ENTj Si PoLR = can't feel shit in the body. It can be bad because I can collapse out of the blue without feeling any symptom that the collapse is coming.

And by the way, the whiniest bitch about atmospherical conditions I know is actually a SLI, which can't even run for more than 10 kms without telling me 10000 times to go slower.

[Rocky]

Oh, and Rocky, you twit, there are no ENxJs in this thread. Also... since you're about halfway between ISTp and INTp... using yourself for self-analysis of doesn't really bring that good results.

Maybe you're right.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Okay, that was mildly humorous. Especially the strange rant about how, though basically every socionist uses behaviourism to type people (except the one's that use neophrenology) there's supposedly no connection with socionics and behaviourism... right... sure...

what i am getting at is there is no explicit relationship between behavior and functions. the functions are assumed to exist so as to explain behavior. socionics is about information processing, which makes it dirty behaviorism, if we choose to call it that. i find it problematic and tangled as it falls short of the goals of behaviorism. furthermore, behaviorism is dead and for good reason. it excluded mental activity.

are the functions merely behavior as rocky says?

So... Information processing... Exactly how many socionists type people through aptitude tests?

couldn't tell you, but i only brought up information processing to highlight the point above.

And if cognitive thought doesn't come into it... anyone care to explain the decent results people get through taking standardized self-appraisal tests like Lytov's?

not sure, as lytov doesn't/hasn't disclosed the mechanisms in those tests. or i am just unaware of the mechanisms.

[Rocky]

Oh, and Rocky, you twit, there are no ENxJs in this thread. Also... since you're about halfway between ISTp and INTp... using yourself for self-analysis of doesn't really bring that good results.

Maybe you're right.

You know, I also wonder if the logical-ISTP has an increased relationship of + to - than the sensorica-ISTP (who would have more - in relation to + than the logical one?) This could possibally work with all of the types.

[Smilingeyes]

what i am getting at is there is no explicit relationship between behavior and functions. the functions are assumed to exist so as to explain behavior. socionics is about information processing, which makes it dirty behaviorism, if we choose to call it that. i find it problematic and tangled as it falls short of the goals of behaviorism. furthermore, behaviorism is dead and for good reason. it excluded mental activity.

Fair's fair I guess... How explicit a relationship are you looking for?

are the functions merely behavior as rocky says?

They're at least behaviour.... because they're directly observable... but it's reasonable to postulate that there is a permanent mechanism that causes the behaviour as well, one that can be linked to it. Unfortunately looking for that mechanism isn't very easy... and then I get the urge to use Occam's razor and say that the mechanism doesn't really matter anyway as long as it works.

The mechanism behind the behaviour exists at least on the cognitive level... and that of course has a neuroelectric counterpart... but I've yet to see anything convincing about _neurostructural_ types. Quite the contrary actually. I'm not even going to talk about genetics, the people who suggest that genes have something to do with this stuff probably have no fucking idea how genes actually cause properties of people...

And if cognitive thought doesn't come into it... anyone care to explain the decent results people get through taking standardized self-appraisal tests like Lytov's?

not sure, as lytov doesn't/hasn't disclosed the mechanisms in those tests. or i am just unaware of the mechanisms.[/quote]

As far as cognitive mechanisms go, everyone's unaware The problem with science is often that it's just trying to observe things, whereas sometimes I'm more interested in creating techniques. Experimenting with one's psyche is... fun. Let's leave it at that for now.

[Smilingeyes]

You know, I also wonder if the logical-ISTP has an increased relationship of + to - than the sensorica-ISTP (who would have more - in relation to + than the logical one?) This could possibally work with all of the types.

I'd say that has to be correct.