Quotes and Information Elements
This may have been partially inspired by the describe your PoLR thread.
So, this is basically an interesting thing I was thinking about. I mention a quote, and people have to decide if there's an IM element (or possibly a function location) that can be associated with it.
First one:
"I see everyone else doing this. I guess I should copy them."
That sounds like the Role function, actually (and maybe to a lesser extent the Mobilizing function). The IE would be related to what they were doing. For example:Originally Posted by Taknamay
"I see everyone else is having red wine with their meal. I guess I should copy them." = Si.
"I see everyone else is filing these papers a certain way. I guess I should copy them." = Te.
I like this game.
Quaero Veritas.
oh God.
Well, if nobody is interested in that one... I wonder if people would also be interested in non-quote concepts? For example, which element do you think has the most to do with motion? I would say
because it's related to force.
Definitely Ne -- Intuition of Alternate Possibilities. Possibly with Ti backing it up (the "keeping track" part sounds like a logical statistical analysis).
Motion, on the other hand, is actually primarily related to Te. Se observes the static force/strength present in objects; Te observes the dynamic motion present in moving/changing objects. Te + Si, in particular, would deal with physical motion. Te + Ni tends to deal with motion on a larger, more abstract scale.
Ignore Poli. Some people around here are unwarrantedly condescending.
Quaero Veritas.
i don't see alpha NTs being quickly inclined to do that at all.
The irrational subtypes of Alpha NT say stuff like that all the time. Whether or not they'd actually do it is another question entirely. LIIs especially would probably be too self-conscious to actually try it, unless they were in a highly emotionally "safe" environment.
Quaero Veritas.
I was wondering how long it would take before you showed up with a line like that. Now that I have a better understanding of your version of socionics, it all makes sense.
For the record, I agree, in your version of socionics this thread is stupid and fundamentally wrong-headed. But in the "Rick/Expat/Marie84/Krig the Viking" version of socionics (which in my opinion is closer to "Augustan" socionics than your version), this thread makes complete sense and is a useful and instructive exercise.
One of these days I'll have to finish my big long post for the "Schools of Thought in Socionics" thread, so I can better explain what I mean.
Quaero Veritas.
IMO
IMO, it's introversion and the function depends on the context. If you said "I should copy them." that sounds like Fi. If it's "I guess I should copy them." that sounds like Ni. If it's "I will copy them." that sounds like Ti. If it's "I'm copying them." that sounds like Si.
No function. It depends on why they are doing it. What are they going to do with that information and why do they think they want it?
But why do you think your school of thought to be the best one? And please don't say you don't think that it is; if you prefer to use it over other schools of thought than please explain why so you can enlighten everyone else, please.
In my opinion, it corresponds most closely with what I observe in real life, is the most internally consistent and consistent with Aushra's original theory, and has the greatest predictive power when it comes to behaviour and relationships. Presumably Ashton believes his theory for similar reasons (although I don't know if he cares about being consistent with Aushra), I just happen to think he's wrong. But "I'm right and you're wrong" is not a very useful mode of discussion; it's better to try to clearly understand how our ideas differ, and then compare how well the evidence fits each.
Quaero Veritas.
The problem with these threads is that isolated quotes like "I see everyone else doing this, I guess I should copy them" are utterly devoid of context. What is it that everybody is doing? Why would he copy it? Is he not skilled at what it is they're doing and wants to learn? Does the person just want to fit in with the group? And so on.
Uhm, technically any dynamic IE is going to be more related to motion than anything else. I'm not even going to go into howWhich element do you think has the most to do with motion? I would say
And "they should be copied" is Fe; "I guess they should be copied," it's Ne; "they will be copied" is Te; and "they are being copied" is Se?. How about "I guess they could be copied" for Ne!
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
Krig is dim. I'd just let him go on with it, I don't think anyone cares.
But aren't all perceptions related to an information element, which processes the information aspects? I thought that was a fundamental part of Socionics...
Exactly. From what I understand, Ashton and some others have an alternate view of how all that works. Instead of seeing reality as being composed of different information aspects, which are processed separately in different information elements, they propose that each information element is like a "filter" which processes *all* information. So you tend to see people who follow that school of thought rolling their eyes and calling straightforward associations of aspects and elements (like we're doing here) "stereotypical" and "simple-minded", etc.
Is that an accurate assessment of our differences, Ashton, or have I missed something?
Quaero Veritas.
This thread demonstrates probably the most common problem when the majority of us attempt to clarify and categorize types: Bias and shallow associations about types and their focuses, that are too general to do with any specific type. These people need to experience more and realize they're similar to everyone else in a lot of ways.
and this kind of thinking poses an obstacle in the forums' learning.
Last edited by 717495; 11-14-2011 at 08:38 AM.
So what happens when it's interpreted by a human mind? What becomes of it? If I'm following you correctly, then you're talking about the inclusion of good and bad, is that right? I think that is an interesting observation, but the bit about information being IE-neutral is confusing me. What do you mean by that? How is it IE-neutral? Refer me to any source or reference if you can't be bothered to explain.
so which information elements do you see in the quote that you provided?
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
As I've understood it:
Stance 1: Consistent external behaviors exhibited represents a person's type.
Stance 2: Perceptual filters defines type. External behaviors have correlation to perceptual filters.
Conflict arises when: Behavior X is exhibited. Stance 1 perceives type X. Stance 2 doubts, argues for type Y, calls X non-type related or related to Z.
There are pros and cons to both methods: The first could be criticized as MBTI-ish, but has clarity of typing as its advantage. The second could be criticized for its ambiguity, yet more.. holistic.
In stance 1, subtypes and type changes are permitted. In stance 2, not so much.
Type battles here seem to stem from these differences.
Ummm, I think anyone who disagrees that perceptual filters comprise determine Socionics type is not talking about Socionics, or Jung, or Information Metabolism.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Fine, I'll help you out since it looks like no one else is cooperating...
IM I see are
"I see" - static; could also be "he's playing with my toys."
Se watches, takes in something.
"everyone else" -object of sense perception
"doing this." -action
That would be a conditioning an object; you do it with either labeling it with some quality, "a black man" or an action "doing"
"I guess I should copy them." -a decision to act base on what one sees (perceives); that may be the tail end of consciousness hence Ti. The impetus to act is after a decision has been concluded by some means of rational judgement.
It's not Te because Te focuses on what's being done with the object.
"Those work well." That would kinda be Te. Or, "you would get a better response if you toned it down." "the reason why you're not like this is because of this."
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 11-15-2011 at 04:26 AM.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Shut the fuck up and go jerk off on Psychological Types.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
hurrrr
He's your antipode. You have to show him some respect or else you are even more full of shit than he is.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
You guys have known each other for a million years (in socionics relationship standards), but still can't love and get along.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I can't hug ashton, his manly chest is too broad, and my embrace could never envelop his soaring infantile ego.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Ughhhh.And you disagree that, on the balance of probabilities, an Ne valuer is more likely to think that wearing their pants backwards would be an interesting idea?
This is why I hate people utilizing Socionics.
That looks tasty, what is that?
That's still no excuse, impo. We're not talking about someone's sociotype character, we're talking about if they're random or not, or like Krig's examples, if they don't know how to fill out paperwork or whatever it is, not type related. It's not even valuable to mention, because it doesn't "add up" to a type.
Instead if people tried to understand the essential meaning of the information elements and then applied some concrete context to an interpretation, there would be less of an issue. "How" is a big word, how someone went about saying they're going to put their pants backwards, the context, whereabouts, diologue, the whole picture.
What kind of cracker?
No I didn't actually, you must have not read what either of us said.
Also you apparently have little knowledge of my opinions, maybe you're being influenced too much by Gilly's fabricated drama.
Also know plenty (being most) Ne valuers who don't. Most people, everyone. There's this stereotype that Ne types are supposed to be more wacky or something, along with Alpha NTs being ingenious and Gamma NTs making big money, blah blah etc. I don't even want to bring up delta ones.
Um... back on topic.
Type this quote-thing!
"Sometimes we are lucky enough to know our lives have been changed, to discard the old and embrace the new and run headlong down an immutable course. It happened to me... on that summer's day when my eyes were opened to the sea."
No I don't think I did just that. If I remember correctly others might have been reading into that wackiness = Ne and gone onto redefine my impetus, when I more or less described the kind of wackiness that some EPs have in comparison to others, esp by using famous examples of Ne doms vs Se doms. This is another example of simplistic thinking and don't think having "wackiness" means someone is Ne.Haha, didn't you point out Cat King Cole's wackiness as an example of his Ne-valuing? You use this reasoning frequently when typing others.
Herp-a-derp.
Last edited by 717495; 11-15-2011 at 08:51 AM.
I haven't read all of this, however much appears to make sense. I think it is important to realise that how one interprets external reality or information, is just that, an interpretation. And the perceived IM's are entirely dependent on, as you said, internal 'filters' (I like this term). There is no objective truth contained within language, only attempts to share understanding and meaning. This meaning however, will change across cultures backgrounds, individuals etc.
Your differences seems to be one of Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te.
Where the Ti-side thinks that what is expressed is what is important, and that the context either lacks relevance or could be guessed. You could arrive at an appropriate context by estimating the probability of the expression being made in a context. Ti/Fe-humour is often about people doing things that later is revealed to have been in an unusual context.
Te/Fi on the other hand don't always find these kinds of jokes funny because they don't understand the meaning of expressions without context. They're a bit retarded that way. Sure, they might make better judgements when aaaaaall of the context is analyzed, but that might take forever, and the analysis is still dependent on that you've made a correct estimation of what the relevant context is.
A Ti/Fe-analysis is less clear in that way, but holds true for a greater variety of contexts.
Edit added: The Ti/Fe-approach might err in that not all expressions are general or holds the same meaning for everyone. (That's mostly because Te/Fi-people don't understand the meaning of words and expressions though...)
You are right. What's all the contention about then, if these 2 stances are the same in practice?
It seems to me that these contentions stem not so much from whether or not perceptual filters exist, rather than a difference of weight placed onto various aspects of the personality, according to what is perceived as weak/strong by the typer.
Stance 1 suffers from stereotype accusations all the time, compared to holistic stance 2. Unfortunately, the holism of stance 2 has one great constraint: Time. Over time, we become exposed to new experiences and discover different sides of ourselves, and it becomes necessary to incorporate our new experiences into our present understanding. What had been in the past been holistic, no longer is. Stance 2 isn't as immune to type change as it seems either.
My first thought on the pants issue was that it would be more likely for Ne valuers (and my ILE daughter has actually worn clothes backward to see if anyone would notice), but my second thought was that it would probably be just as likely for Fe valuers, half of whom are not Ne valuers. And then I thought that there might be other people who would do that as well, I'm not sure. I understand the thought behind it and I agree with the thought behind the quote, but if I actually heard someone say that I would probably look harder to see where it was going than assume Ne. I would keep Ne in my head as a possible reason though.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
i'm curious why VI is being dealt so much less harsh a condemnation than this thread. if you can't read a type from tiny subtle cues in the kind of phrases the person uses, what makes you all think reading types from subtle cues in a person's face makes any more sense.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
