Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Emotivism - Constructivism

  1. #1
    Idiot Iris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    TIM
    EIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,001
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting post on a dichotomy that is hard for me to understand. The first thing that I noticed is that they are supervision pairs.
    You seek a great fortune, you three who are now in chains. You will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek.
    But first you must travel a long and difficult road, a road fraught with peril.
    You shall see things, wonderful to tell. You shall see a... cow... on the roof of a cotton house. And, oh, so many startlements.
    I cannot tell you how long this road shall be, but fear not the ob-stacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward.
    Though the road may wind, yea, your hearts grow weary, still shall ye follow them, even unto your salvation
    .


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pukq_XJmM-k

  2. #2
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East of the sun, west of the moon
    TIM
    SLI 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,706
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like (and identify with) the part that refers to my type.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  3. #3
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I recall Constructivist/Emovitist pertaining to which judging function is Inert and which is Contact. Still kind of fuzzy on what those terms mean, but Inert functions (including the leading) are taken for granted in the sense that they aren't directly interacted with and function on a rather automatic and subconscious level. Contact, then, refers to a quality of more conscious manipulation and control over a function, such as the creative function.

    Inert-T types (any sort of T-leading or F-creative) supposedly are Emotivists in that they don't actively connect with the world around them on a basis of intellect or knowledge. That part of their cognition instead happens as a background process that the type has diminished conscious control over, which allows them to actively connect with the world on a more sentimental basis. The inverse then applies to Inert-F types (F-leading and T-creative).

    I feel like I'm making a good chunk of this up, but you can read more about the inert/contact division here.

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    also:
    emotivism: Focal Serious, Diffuse Merry
    constructivist: Diffuse Serious, Focal Merry

    among all function Values; supposing the super-id is shaped like the dual's.

    inert/contact can be explained as whether your attitude to a function is extreme or middle-of-the-road ish. although i'm not 100% happy with that because the creative function can be a more focused obsession than the base function. also the id functions are not commonly said to fit this pattern (which doesn't necessarily mean they don't).

  5. #5
    24601 ClownsandEntropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    TIM
    LII, 5w6
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting, interesting... I can't say I disagree with how LIIs bond. However, what's the difference between:

    "we are enjoying ourselves";
    "we are feeling good"; and
    "we are having fun"?
    Warm Regards,



    Clowns & Entropy

  6. #6
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ananke View Post
    The pattern is that

    Alpha EJ, Beta EJ, Gamma IP and Delta IP seek a Ti-sort of connection with people (ESE, EIE, ILI, SLI)
    Alpha IJ, Beta IJ, Gamma EP and Delta EP seek a Fe-sort of connection with people (LII, LSI, SEE, IEE)
    Alpha IP, Beta IP, Gamma EJ and Delta EJ seek a Fi-sort of connection with people (SEI, IEI, LIE, LSE)
    Alpha EP, Beta EP, Gamma IJ and Delta IJ seek a Te-sort of connection with people (ILE, SLE, ESI, EII)

    As you can see, these are not supervision rings, but two and two pairings in each group also share the same irrational ego-function and also share supervision ring, so that's where you saw the pattern.

    Other interesting patterns in this theory: dynamics seek connectivity on an internal level (Fi or Ti), while statics seek connectivity on an external level (Fe or Te). In addition, rationals seek connectivity on a level similar to their dual's strongest function, while irrationals seek connectivity on a level similar to their dual's weakest function.

    There are lot of consequence to be expected from these patterns:
    - rational duals probably have an easier time bonding at first than irrational duals (no idea if this is true in reality), since their preferred style of connections is their dual's strongest function
    - rationals are probably more on tracks within their quadra's valued functions than irrationals in settings where they try to connect with somebody, since they prefer connecting on their dual's strong function (and thus their quadra's valued functions), while merry/serious irrationals seek deep connections on serious/merry quadra's rational functions.
    - Some interesting traits in the types are also revealed:

    • ESE, EIE, ILI and SLI all seek Ti-sort of connectivity with others, and based on this, ESEs and EIEs can probably be colder than expected when they try to connect with people for real, more in such cases than if they are just "Fe-ing around". For ILI and SLI on the other hand the "cold" effect is augmented (when trying to bond).
    • LII, LSI, SEE and IEE all seek Fe-sort of connectivity with others, and based on this, LIIs and LSIs can probably be warmer than expected when they try to connect with people for real.. For SEE and IEE on the other hand, the "warm" effect is augmented.
    • SEI, IEI, LIE and LSE all seek Fi-sort of connectivity with others, and based on this, LIE and LSE can probably seem sappier than expected when they try to connect with people for real. For SEIs and IEIs the "deep and feely" effect is just augmented.
    • ILE, SLE, ESI and EII all seek Te-sort of connectivity with others, and based on this, ESIs and EIIs can probably seem more interested in productivity than expected when they try to connect with people for real. For ILEs and SLEs the "producing" quality is just augmented.

    The reason I brought in, and grouped based on, the irrational function in the opening post, was to show how the "feeling" of the "good times" is for each type. When we add in the irrational dimension, we see how people consciously seek Ti/Te/Fi and Fe connectivity, while they unconsciously expect a certain "feel" or "outcome" of this. The rational functions is what we consciously do to achieve the good state for our irrational ego-function. Read the opening post if you need explanation of what I just said.
    yes, I would agree with this as it is in regards to me, because when I speak with LSE I say things like "I pay very close attention to the hints you give and make sure I factor them in or consider them in my approach of the work you want me to do." That LSE give hints rather than directing in a way is very important to how they observe how others listen to them and follow their tuitions.
    -
    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

Posting Permissions

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