Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Different Varities of Ethics and Other Functions?

  1. #1
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Different Varities of Ethics and Other Functions?

    After studying socionics, I started to observe people, not just observe people a little bit - really observe them. This has especially manifested itself in the study of ethical functions. I think I have distinguished at least three kinds of ethics (I will use the Enneagram as a matter of illustrating these differences):

    1) Warm ethics. These people strike me kinesthetically as one would find a warm blanket. They are very kind-hearted, tender, somewhat positive people. They like to warm up to others and show a strong sense of kindness and compassion. An example would be "Kelly Kapoor" from the show "The Office." (In other words, indicative of Enneagram type twos.)

    2) Outgoing ethics. These people are friendly, funny, and enthusiastic. They fit the classical notion of extraverted ethics. An example of someone with this function would be Sandra Bullock. (More E7)

    3) Integrity-based ethics. These people are idealistic, moral, and value class and decency. They try to impose their ideals and morals on others. They fit the classical notions of introverted ethics. An example would be Barack Obama. (More E1)

    **4) (This one is still a work in progress.) Another kind of ethics I have discovered is more melancholy. These people fit the classic notions of Enneagram type fours. They are more quiet, somber, emotional people. Many have a creative side.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________

    Based on this, I think a good strategy I could embark on is researching other personality typing systems to discover other varieties of the functions. Just off of the top of my head, the more investigative E5 types of LIIs seem different from the structured, organized E1s. Also, these differences play a role in the community's different definitions of the types. For instance, if someone has a more E2 notion of ESEs, they will type people differently than someone with a more E7 notion. In any event, insofar as it is constructive, tell me what you think...
    LII

  2. #2
    Killer of DJA's Fun fen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    TIM
    SEE-Fi 9w1 so/sx
    Posts
    1,148
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sandra Bullock is ILE...(?)
    And I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.


  3. #3
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fenryrr View Post
    Sandra Bullock is ILE...(?)
    Sandra Bullock is not typed as ILE by everyone (and I don't think that is her type). If you are willing to look more deeply into this, watch an interview of James Dyson. You will see why Sandra Bullock is not the same type as him.

    PS: The answer as to why she might seem like an ILE in your system is in my post if you read carefully.
    LII

  4. #4
    strangeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,704
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    FTR, I personally find people that fall into 1) and 2) impose 'affective' ethics on other people - what I like to call emotional propaganda, manipulation, and control. This is proven by the inability to accept that I really don't care for it and guilt tripping me for not 'being' part of a group.

    Basically, we obviously value different kinds of ethics and this impacts on how we view them. That said, I don't really give a shit what you think/believe as long as it isn't used against me, but please recognize this kind of bias, if you care about that sort of thing.

  5. #5
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't really see much difference between 1 and 2. And 3 is Fi indeed but means something deepers than what you try to describe. I can explain what it is, if you wish.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  6. #6
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ethics is stupid. Lots of people seem to have the ridiculous belief that Good and Bad are somehow measurable and objectifiable entities. I try to take myself out that field entirely, instead favoring "I like" and "I dislike;" it's a much more accurate representation of how my brain works, without the mess of projecting my own biases and preferences as facts. Not sure where this perspective fits into your model.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  7. #7
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,621
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i identify with 1 and 4 the most so i'd be the least classically ethical ethical type.
    i have a dash of 3 but not really any 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex View Post
    I don't really see much difference between 1 and 2.
    weird, i think they're totally different.

    kinda like

    http://www.true-beauty-tips.com/imag...e-21244664.jpg

    vs

    http://images.watoday.com.au/2009/10...20x0-420x0.jpg

    (okay the second picture is weird but i got tired of looking for a good one haha)

  8. #8
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,621
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i didn't even see that in the OP, i thought it was an unrelated tangent.

  9. #9
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    Ethics is stupid. Lots of people seem to have the ridiculous belief that Good and Bad are somehow measurable and objectifiable entities. I try to take myself out that field entirely, instead favoring "I like" and "I dislike;" it's a much more accurate representation of how my brain works, without the mess of projecting my own biases and preferences as facts. Not sure where this perspective fits into your model.
    Philamosophically speakinz, ethics is the study of value, so in that broader sense it's just as involved in normative good-bad valuations as it is in affective like-dislike. Quite often they overlap and commingle as well, sometimes inextricably so. The latter is clearly illustrated by partisans who unironically advance their personal morals or affinities as natural laws.

    At the risk is scaring jason_m into hiding again by addressing him in his own thread, E5 INTx-es (among NTs in general) are well suited for the examination of meta-ethics, with an emphasis on taxonomy for one like himself, and on etiology for one like me.

  10. #10
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsy View Post
    Philamosophically speakinz, ethics is the study of value, so in that broader sense it's just as involved in normative good-bad valuations as it is in affective like-dislike. Quite often they overlap and commingle as well, sometimes inextricably so. The latter is clearly illustrated by partisans who unironically advance their personal morals or affinities as natural laws.
    Be that as it may, the only times I ever see the topic of ethics come up is in the same context as these sorts of scenarios, where everything the writer assumes you'll need to know about the situation is written down in bold lettering and asks you "is this good or bad?" Naturally, I shy away from these loaded questions and just see it as an excuse for the author to pretend he's more righteous than the little internet dweeb who can actually pose an argument against his own.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  11. #11
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    Be that as it may, the only times I ever see the topic of ethics come up is in the same context as these sorts of scenarios, where everything the writer assumes you'll need to know about the situation is written down in bold lettering and asks you "is this good or bad?" Naturally, I shy away from these loaded questions and just see it as an excuse for the author to pretend he's more righteous than the little internet dweeb who can actually pose an argument against his own.
    My comment can stand on its own but it was given in this case as a general-interest supplement to your own, not as an objection.

    What you've pointed out is a good example of how frequently some individuals ignore the division of descriptive and prescriptive ethics. The sanctimonious person you've illustrated is little more than an egotist, though often times the same attitude is also symptomatic of moral realism, or moral reification, which again rests upon personal construal of "natural law" and/or belief arrived at via mystical revelation.

  12. #12
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex View Post
    I don't really see much difference between 1 and 2. And 3 is Fi indeed but means something deepers than what you try to describe. I can explain what it is, if you wish.
    Sure: I would be interested.
    LII

  13. #13
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As you suspect, I see each one of these differently.

    1) I really struggle with, 2) I enjoy (essentially a super-id function), and 3) and 4) I don't mind, perhaps even enjoy from time to time. That's why I think there are different functions here.
    LII

  14. #14
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In the spirit of the thread, a few different kinds of logical functions come to mind (if you don't know who some of the examples are, I suggest that you look up interviews of them on youtube):

    1) Abstract logic. The logic of these individuals is deep and perhaps introspective. They are investigative, deep thinkers, who have an understanding of logic that is highly abstract and theoretical in nature, trying to find the underlying principles of a concept, theory, etc. Excel in fields like physics, philosophy, and formal logic. This description might sound like "intuition" to some people. However, it is best exemplified by E5s, which I have found are usually logical types. An example would be Albert Einstein or perhaps Christopher Langan (as a "sensing" example).

    2) Systematic logic. These people understand systems, schemes, hierarchies - anything systematic - better than anyone. The aims are not as much simply grasping the principles of a system, or its practical use, but bringing a systematic approach to the world in general - in other words, Ti in the classical sense. They are often very organized, efficient, methodical and painstaking. These people might be best exemplified by logical types who are E1s or E6w5s/E5w6s. A good example would be Roger Penrose.

    3) Practical logic. This is essentially Te; practice, not theory, is what is of major importance here. These people can fix anything, build anything, manage anything. They have a good knack for "what works" and this sometimes leads them into areas of business. They also have a solid understanding of factual information and can apply it to their areas of interest. They are drawn to fields like engineering, business and economics. (This function is not well-defined in the Enneagram.) A good example would be Milton Friedman.
    Last edited by jason_m; 11-16-2012 at 06:07 AM.
    LII

  15. #15
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    In the spirit of the thread, a few different kinds of logical functions come to mind (if you don't know who some of the examples are, I suggest that you look up interviews of them on youtube):

    1) Abstract logic. The logic of these individuals is deep and perhaps introspective. They are investigative, deep thinkers, who have an understanding of logic that is highly abstract and theoretical in nature, trying to find the underlying principles to a concept, theory, etc. Excel in fields like physics, philosophy, and formal logic. This description might sound like "intuition" to some people. However, it is best exemplified by E5s, which I have found are usually logical types. An example would be Albert Einstein or perhaps Christopher Langan (as a "sensing" example).

    2) Systematic logic. These people understand systems, schemes, hierarchies - anything systematic - better than anyone. The aims are not as much simply grasping the principles of a system, or its practical use, but bringing a systematic approach to the world in general - in other words, Ti in the classical sense. They are often very organized and efficient. These people might be best exemplified by logical types who are E1s or E6w5s/E5w6s. A good example would be Roger Penrose.

    3) Practical logic. This is essentially Te; practice, not theory, is what is of major importance here. These people can fix anything, build anything, manage anything. They have a good knack for "what works" and this sometimes leads them into areas of business. They also have a solid understanding of factual information and can apply it to their areas of interest. They are drawn to fields like engineering, business and economics. (This function is not well-defined in the Enneagram.) A good example would be Milton Friedman.
    The difference between Ti and Te is epistemic justification, not so much application. Congratulations on writing another self-stroking post and maintaining your proficiency at ejaculating into your own mouth.

  16. #16
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsy View Post
    The difference between Ti and Te is epistemic justification, not so much application. Congratulations on writing another self-stroking post and maintaining your proficiency at ejaculating into your own mouth.
    In the end, what proof do you have for this anymore than I have for my post? Does someone need anger management or is it "just PMS"? In other words, what exactly is a comment like that supposed to bring to the table?

    EDIT: In other words, you are responding as if Ti - my Ti - can be categorically wrong. Both my Ti and your (apparent) Ti is limited this way. This is essentially the difference between Ti and Te. Because it is based on objective information, information based on Te is more easily verified. You can more easily tell if it is 100% right or wrong. Outside of scientific circles, Ti is not really verifiable. However, it is more powerful, because it can draw conclusions that you can never draw from empirical information. In other words, what I'm posting is just a set of ideas to me. They are neither 100% right or wrong, and because they are not verifiable without doing a big study, there is no feasible way to be certain about how accurate they are, but my guess is that most times, Ti ideas are neither wholly accurate or inaccurate.
    Last edited by jason_m; 11-16-2012 at 08:39 AM.
    LII

  17. #17
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsy View Post
    At the risk is scaring jason_m into hiding again by addressing him in his own thread, E5 INTx-es (among NTs in general) are well suited for the examination of meta-ethics, with an emphasis on taxonomy for one like himself, and on etiology for one like me.
    This is helpful to me, but as an aside: I don't usually respond to threads here because I've become bored of this forum, so I'm not usually here. This is not a university and I am not a lecturer or professor here, so I would hope I can come and go as I please. And for the record, most of the responses are just petty squabbling, so I don't even bother responding. As an LII, I respond to more positive responses than something angry or petty like I usually see in these forums.
    LII

  18. #18
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    As an LII, I respond to more positive responses than something angry or petty like I usually see in these forums.
    That's understandable but since a preference for ease over conflict is not only a general human trait but also an animal and perhaps even a vegetable one, it's not especially characteristic of LIIs in any meaningfully or specific way. And plenty of LIIs love a pitched rhetorical battle. So socionics by hackneyed behavioral stereotype is silly and petty and easily falsifiable. However it's also demonstrably your preferred mode and I'm not expecting your to abandon such a useful instrument of self flattery, so unless you want to examine the problems with stereotyponics in greater detail then I won't bother commenting on the rest.

    Add to your list, the E8-style martial ethics characterized by the values of puissance, valor, and honor.

  19. #19
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Assessment of "objective" information is Ti. I hear the cries of Gamma NTs coming from a mile away but it's the sad truth boys.

    Te is not about validity as much as it's about efficiency and utility.

    I'm in the opinion that valued functions are overemphasized. As far as I'm concerned, Ti and Te have separate functions that do not contradict each other as much as it's generally implied.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    How did that turn into what Ti and Te is, when OP blabs about ethics? Only on Socionics forum.

  21. #21
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    Assessment of "objective" information is Ti. I hear the cries of Gamma NTs coming from a mile away but it's the sad truth boys.

    Te is not about validity as much as it's about efficiency and utility.

    I'm in the opinion that valued functions are overemphasized. As far as I'm concerned, Ti and Te have separate functions that do not contradict each other as much as it's generally implied.
    But wouldn't that notion of Ti be the position of objectivists over subjectivists? (For me, there is almost no overlap of Ti with Te).
    LII

  22. #22
    strangeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,704
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @jason_m What you are talking about is certainly valid and really interesting, but it's not related to functions.

    What k0rpsey probably means by epistemic is analogous to logical taxonomy versus causally observable.
    See Ti aims at that abstract and unchanging realm of taxonomy, while Te aims at the concrete and changing realm of cause and effect (which becomes facts). They epistemically contradict each other's aims.
    For example, if you were to call me evil, that's like taxonomy, wherein the label has a static logically derived meaning that is separable from the causal world (it is abstract). Basically, Te looks at context for meaning, while Ti looks at what has been logically derived. This is why Te is practical, but also why Ti is political and organized.

    Does this make sense to you? Do you have any problems with it?

  23. #23
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tackk View Post
    @jason_m What you are talking about is certainly valid and really interesting, but it's not related to functions.

    What k0rpsey probably means by epistemic is analogous to logical taxonomy versus causally observable.
    See Ti aims at that abstract and unchanging realm of taxonomy, while Te aims at the concrete and changing realm of cause and effect (which becomes facts). They epistemically contradict each other's aims.
    For example, if you were to call me evil, that's like taxonomy, wherein the label has a static logically derived meaning that is separable from the causal world (it is abstract). Basically, Te looks at context for meaning, while Ti looks at what has been logically derived. This is why Te is practical, but also why Ti is political and organized.

    Does this make sense to you? Do you have any problems with it?
    I guess it makes some sense, but I am trying to dig deeper with this theory, understanding it from "first principles." After reading a book called "Career Code", I've discovered that the organized nature and abstract nature of Ti might be two different functions that are combined into one. I suspect that many people have both, but some people don't. That's why you see descriptions of Ti that focus solely on organization and some people's notions of Ti are more abstract than structured. I personally am "Ti" but I don't value organization very much. I am trying to come to some understanding of this. In other words, socionics espouses that all logical types are either organized in some way or practical. I suspect that there is more diversity to logical types than this, and I'm trying to hit on the right notion as to how.
    LII

  24. #24
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    But wouldn't that notion of Ti be the position of objectivists over subjectivists? (For me, there is almost no overlap of Ti with Te).
    No.

    Not what I was getting at.

    You said this in your previous post:
    3) Practical logic. This is essentially Te; practice, not theory, is what is of major importance here. These people can fix anything, build anything, manage anything. They have a good knack for "what works" and this sometimes leads them into areas of business. They also have a solid understanding of factual information and can apply it to their areas of interest. They are drawn to fields like engineering, business and economics. (This function is not well-defined in the Enneagram.) A good example would be Milton Friedman.
    Why is this not Ti? The bolded I mean.

    Stratievskaya descriptions of Ti (in ESI and LIE):

    BLOCK superego. 3rd position: normative function - "Logic Systems"

    Dreiser always want to impress people reasonable and sensible. Moreover, he'd like to be it and that he was a lifelong student.

    Dreiser tries to control his feelings and reason logically analyze everything that happens to him, but it's not very good at it.

    A lot of respect in the people the ability to clearly and concisely express the thought. It myself for a long time with little success and learning.

    Any of the phenomenon, a theory or tries to understand the subject in fact, expand "on the shelves", to find in it some regularity. Successfully learns only in well-designed and accessible presentation techniques. If the subject is taught is chaotic, messy, inconsistent, with some impromptu theme "with constantly changing techniques or complete lack thereof - for it is a disaster: this training he does not perceive, falls among the laggards, because of this very experienced, panics and depression.

    With age Dreiser are particularly choosy in selecting teachers and methods of education, the level of which they have for their entire lives are constantly improving: acquire several professions (not necessarily adjacent), which find it necessary to ensure professionalism. And since the improvement of skill requires continuous deepening of the theory, study of perceived as the most constant and the natural process of life.

    Dreiser try to be logical and consistent in presenting their arguments. Therefore, think through them in advance and set out the points: "First, second, third ...". But in the "fourth" and "fifth" deviate from the given topic, the "sixth" and "seventh" repeated and varied arguments are, and when faced with a "soft" or "creative" logic ( especially from the opposite quad) all their a "slim" and "thought" concept falls apart at the first paragraph.

    Dreiser's logic does not stand up fighting and those who have this aspect is in an even weaker position-for example, with irrational ethical extravert-Caesar and Huxley, as a logical sequence of argument generally not observed, and the conversation always jumps to the personal "showdown." Normal output for Dreiser in this situation in time to see the unreasonableness of further discussion (which he is given the cost of great tension throughout the block Superego), and is entirely based on his "strong-willed sensory" get out of the dispute, while being one (if possible) not to offend .

    Due to these "disputes" in Dreiser corrected representation of his own "logical capacity" and they've become even more zeal and attention begin to take its development. (Because not consider themselves in this matter is hopeless, though, and realize that the profession of the philosopher and theorist - not for them.)

    Logical relations for Dreiser's not as important as ethical. Therefore, in the interest of the ethics of relations it can distort the facts, can manipulate them, which causes some complications in the initial stage of dualization it to Jack. But then Jack realizes that you should not pick on some logical errors Dreiser, and considers it "logical" information on the aspect of ethics, understands that for logical information Dreiser are only its ethical motives. (And Dreiser him for this understanding is very grateful.)
    Block ID. 7th position: watchdog role - "The logic of relations"

    This feature complements the logic program Jack prepares its theoretical basis, collect and process information. Controls its consistency and reliability.

    Jack can only convince with facts and perfectly logical concepts. Subconsciously, he always said to myself all the logical inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of any expressed his thoughts in any proposed his theory. Has an excellent memory, easy to remember new information, trying to organize her immediately.

    Selection of information makes it very thoroughly, if possible, from the most authoritative sources. For Jack, it is very important the reliability of sources of information. Generally, it is based only on those facts, the veracity of which he personally convinced. So he is always unpleasant to give up on the source of information: for him it is just as frustrating in friendship - he trusted, and his disappoint. (This is an example: five year old Jack first came to my grandmother's garden, where he was shown a bed of turnip and turnip, contrary to his expectations, looked very young, and he decided to try to pull her own, that he easily obtained. And then he was in fact a contradiction between the real and the source of information, where it was said that the turnip pulling the whole family and could not pull out. Jack decided that still need to check the facts and repeating the experience as long as the entire peredergal turnip in the garden. After that, he first thought that the sources of information can be unreliable.)

    Gathering information from Jack complicated that they can not afford too slowly is the process: after all and the case itself may already be untimely. Taking an important new business, always trying to get it complete information: in the interests of business and sense of responsibility to his team, he does not dare to make nothing of the matter. Collecting the information, Jack tries to be very far-sighted and prudent - he definitely need to take into account possible changes and changing conditions in the future. (For example: proschityvaya expense item, it usually takes into account its dependence on certain contingencies: a possible rise in prices, inflation, higher taxes, higher tariffs for services related to the maintenance and insurance. Ie collecting information is "on request "his subsequent mental function -" intuition of possibilities. ")

    Jack tend to notice any distortion of the information known to him. Hates it when "distort" the facts, and thus distort the truth - it is his deeply resented. As much as he was seemingly relaxed or dispersed, any logical contradiction it instantly wary. Jack - a principled opponent of manipulating the facts, even if it does not change the concept. He's not always easy to agree to recognize that the same is a consequence of a variety of reasons. And not because he is basically difficult to understand: just taking for himself some theory, Jack's important to be sure its logical sequence.

    Similarly, perceiving any information, it must be sure that it is not based on manipulation of facts. (In this regard, there are sometimes problems in the initial stage of dualization Jack with Dreiser: in Dreiser, as you know, manipulative ethics, and he appeals to the facts rather loosely - one and the same fact, he may give the opposite meaning and a great sin in this sees . This circumstance will guard Jack as long as he does not understand what drayzerovskaya logic - it is nothing more than a form of belief, which is just on him, Jack, and calculated)

    All the actions Jack tries to build on the basis of multiple trusted personal experience. (Its manufacturing process he develops too many times on the basis of personal experience Proven. So any criticism of their own, "hard-won" methods takes very painful.)

    In the area of ​​scientific experiments Jackie very boldly brings ever his personal experience, and from an early age. There is hardly a representative of this type, which would at least once in your life something blew up, not sleeping, not burned the. Love to invent, dream broaden the horizons of science. Their inventions are very proud of, regardless of how to relate to this surrounding.

    Theoretical logic Jack up an information base and a prerequisite for its subsequent mental function - intuition capabilities.

  25. #25
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    No.

    Not what I was getting at.

    You said this in your previous post:
    Why is this not Ti? The bolded I mean.
    It could be, but it is more consistent with notions of Te as a leading and creative function based on the function descriptions at Wikisocion.
    LII

  26. #26
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    It could be, but it is more consistent with notions of Te as a leading and creative function based on the function descriptions at Wikisocion.
    Most Wikisocion descriptions have been written by forum members!

  27. #27
    strangeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,704
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I guess it makes some sense, but I am trying to dig deeper with this theory, understanding it from "first principles." After reading a book called "Career Code", I've discovered that the organized nature and abstract nature of Ti might be two different functions that are combined into one. I suspect that many people have both, but some people don't. That's why you see descriptions of Ti that focus solely on organization and some people's notions of Ti are more abstract than structured. I personally am "Ti" but I don't value organization very much. I am trying to come to some understanding of this. In other words, socionics espouses that all logical types are either organized in some way or practical. I suspect that there is more diversity to logical types than this, and I'm trying to hit on the right notion as to how.
    I see.
    Recalling some ideas of socionics, there is the producing/accepting ideas. An ILE would see the world irrationally without any particular order, but produce Ti to fit irrational circumstances, giving the conclusion that Ti is not organized; and in this case, it wouldn't be.
    I suppose it's worth thinking about, since you could fit LII-Ne or ILE-Ti much better than the alternatives. I could see the differentiation of Ti into different categorizes as having more meaning to those types; but a Ti accepting type would be all-inclusive?

  28. #28
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tackk View Post
    I see.
    Recalling some ideas of socionics, there is the producing/accepting ideas. An ILE would see the world irrationally without any particular order, but produce Ti to fit irrational circumstances, giving the conclusion that Ti is not organized; and in this case, it wouldn't be.
    I suppose it's worth thinking about, since you could fit LII-Ne or ILE-Ti much better than the alternatives. I could see the differentiation of Ti into different categorizes as having more meaning to those types; but a Ti accepting type would be all-inclusive?
    Yes, that makes sense. I know I am one of the two types. The reason I favour LII-Ne over ILE-Ti is because of my relations. In the end, when socionics is completed, I would have the answer as to which one it really is. Let's hope that I'm still around when this happens.
    LII

  29. #29
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    According to everyone heres' definitions of Ti and Te, I am Ti. But this proves to me that you have your own adapted definitions or some Socionics branch of cognition and not Jung. Whether these are valid or effective or not I won't say, but I don't follow them.

    Te vs Ti is really a difference in viewpoint about what the information stands for or is represented as, not how it fundamentally differs. Intertype-relations is a theory of the roots of communication, those being interpretation, so Ti and Te both deal with what is epistemically verifiable or not. I would think Se deals more naturally in what's considered verified epistemically vs verified through comprehension, because sensing is a function of explicit experience not explicit thought. Anyway, this might be why I've been witnessing some muddled attempts at typing Ti types on this forum (AKA the classic Ne->Ti confusion.)
    Last edited by 717495; 11-17-2012 at 09:59 AM.

  30. #30
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I read this thread and it made me think about something that recently happened to me. First, I want to share some thoughts on the differences and similarities of these four information elements being discussed. I like to think that Te and Ti as information elements are very much different from one another. In the same vein, Fe and Fi are very much different from one another too. I think it comes down to this: both Te and Ti applied by the mind of an individual deal with aspects of reality. What is actually going on. This includes what actually could happen, does happen, how it happens, why it happens, how does it relate to other happenings, and how it happened in the past and could it happen in the future? Te stays in the realm of what actaully happens and how can that knowledge be used. Ti is much broader. As an workable information element, Ti takes reality and with objectivity gives it a deeper analysis beyond what actually happens and how that knowlwedge can be used. Both organise reality. Both, by originally thoughts, give structure and definition to the world. Both are the minds tools for helping the human organism navigate the external world. If Te draws a picture, Ti would be the element that fills in the colour. Placement of either IE in ones egoic base function will create two entirelly different pshyces, or two very different individuals. They both, however, will relate best with objective reality. One will simply effect that reality while the other will not only effect that reality, but connect it to other realities by however objective process that person chooses to use. As we all know.

    So how does this play out? I work at a lumber mill. One night I was operating a large peice of equipment that removes reject boards before they are planed in the planer mill. The equipment is large and includes several conveyer belts. The boards that come of the prodction line range from sizes 2`4 to 2`10 and lenghts 8' to 20'. And there are a lot of them. They are moving fast, they are heavy and they are dangerous. They shoot out of the building, change direction several times and pile up, where I then proceed to organise and stack them. The workplace is full of both Te egos and Ti egos (nevermind the other function channels for now - I could not wager a guess there yet becuase learning some ones typology takes lots of time, exsposure, and art), and it is intersting to see these guys and girls in action. It is one particular girl that I am thinking about who demonstrated her Te at work. She drives one of the large forklifts, you gotta be Te "smarts" to do this. She is very practical and out spoken about how things go (in other words, sees objective reality and how to effect it). She comes with the forklift and picks up the loads I create. This time, a large number of 16' baords was being rejected. Things were getting pretty nasty, and I was fixing metal strapping and dunnage on the load she was going to take away. By the time I finished that task, the baords where a huge tangled mess, and the conveyer was still bringing more in. This had happened before, and common sense told me to turn the conveyer belt off. Which I did not, becuase I figured I could just use the poles to push a few of the offending baords out of the jam. Bad idea, because it was not working. So this women full on yelled at me toturn the conveyer belt off. "Turn your belt off"! she repeated. I did. Bt inside my mind I got my back up, "who does she think she is telling me how to run this when I have been doing my job here for a month now" i thought to myself. But even deeper then that, I appreciated the help in this Te regard. Her and I spoke afterwards in the lunch room when everyone else had left. I got the sense that she wanted to tlak about what happened, becuase our tempers flared a little and we needed to debrief about it to amke sure their was mutual understanding and continued workplace harmony (of course I am sure she was not thinking that, I was though). Plus she made a point to sit near me and idle about when everyone had left. I always trust my gut, she wanted to talk. I told her I am new and respect those that have been here for a long time and she explained to me she had done my job before and knew how to best go about it. She laughed off the whole thing and put me instantly at ease. Okay, you are right, if I turn the belt off at timed intervals I can create manually several piles or stakes of wood before they get to the end of the line and create a headache. Thankyou you are absolutly right, it will be more effecient. It so simple I had not thought of that before. Thankyou, I thoguht. Of course, I kept most of thoughts to myslef about how I had orginally felt put upon and yelled at, and how I greatly appreciated her Te outlook of objective reality and how to use that knowledge to make the job easier! All I said was an understated thankyou, that is a good tip, I have to remember that. She was like man, make the job easier for yourself, do not struggle with needlessly. I do not suspect that she realized before talking with me how keen I was that we get along, because I will be there for a long time and I want to get along with those I work with everyday. It was like her and I both knew we were on the same side. Probably this put her at ease, because I got the sense she was not going to initiate that first step towards discusing our emotional reciprocation. Hahaha, in other words, I allowed her the space to vent and she realized this guy is okay. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. From then on, I used her tip and it has made things more efficient for me which helps me do my job better and faster. With less embarrasment, I was ready when she came to take away my next load. All ended well. Moral of the story, trust others knowledge, and do not focus on the delivery. Te is a minds tool to get things done.

    Now, I want to discss Fe and Fi ethics, which was the original intent of this thread, but my thoughts are a mess and need time before I can put them in order and write what I mean to say. Plus I am using an xbox keyboard, so yeah. I can see why Ne so well compliments Ti. Perhaps that could explain the deep level of logical intuition you were describing earlier.
    @jason_m, I can vaguelly get the impression of a Fi role in your posts, especially when you tlakabout intertypes. I think it is great. But I could be wrong, the internet is a shit place to guess at IE and functions. Your post are a nice example of Ne creative too. I can see why Ne so well compliments Ti. Perhaps this is one explanation for the deep level of logical intuition you were describing earlier. It must give the LII pshyce a special outword facing outlook. I can also see it for one explanation as to why the LII might not be so stubborn in its view. Nor have the need to rigidly and vehemntly defend them. Ne creative seems to pull the mind outwards from itself and look to the outside world to keep its base function alive. This mst have the effect of constantly updating the Ti egos view of objective reality. I can now underdstand why it would be difficult for a LII to be both a creature of his sociol life and interactions and an egoic mindset of focusing on Ti object truths. Truths that are always being upgraded, yet none-the-less truths about reality. Ti and Ne must give the LII logic a special flavour. Look forward to more discussion as your look a like. In the same way I appreciated Te prespectives, I could understand why you might appreciate Fe prespectives. Gawd I just read this, I hope I am getting my point across as intended.
    Last edited by wacey; 11-17-2012 at 12:05 PM.

  31. #31
    Ath Is Cool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    TIM
    optifree
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe the different ethics you're seeing are actually the same ethics but in a different function (lead Fi versus Suggestive Fi)

  32. #32
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...
    Last edited by jason_m; 11-19-2012 at 04:52 AM.
    LII

  33. #33
    Ath Is Cool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    TIM
    optifree
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Enneagram pisses me the fuck off. Fucking triangles and shit, like satan worshipping wikin high school girls. Fuck that shit. SOCIONICS 4EVER

  34. #34
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    There are two varieties of ethics: Fi and Fe.

  35. #35
    Ath Is Cool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    TIM
    optifree
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    YEA SOCIONICS

  36. #36
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Oh yeah? Which forums are these?



    Nah, nigga



    Lol!… u mad, little faggot?



    Yeahhh, retarded apes@!$#@ we'z all about straight up OOGA BOOGA in this motherfucker

    P.S.: Go tote your self-aggrandizing 'intellectual' masturbatory bullshit elsewhere

    (Retarded ape just beated you up and stole your lunch $)
    I see - it's not personal, you were just expressing functions I don't have. Never mind - I don't know when these types are serious and when they are not...
    LII

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •