Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Can we all agree on these descriptions?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Can we all agree on these descriptions?

    ...if not, please suggest something better, for whichever description(s) you think needs improving/changing. Similarly, if you think that a description(s) is reliable, please say so.


    I am attentive to logical relationships between things. I create a system of rules, a system of ranking and organizing things. I make comparisons between things.


    I am attentive to emotional relationships between people. I am attentive to who likes who and who dislikes who. I am attentive to people’s needs. I am attentive to proper behavior.


    I am attentive to the expenditure of resources and to the usefulness/appropriateness of something.


    I am attentive to people’s moods/emotions and emotional arousability.


    I am attentive to sensations and what I experience physically.


    I am attentive to a pattern of events that occur over a span of time. I have a sense of when things might happen.


    I am attentive to the strength/power of people and things.


    I am attentive to the potential/capability of people and things, which can be developed. I am attentive to inherent possibilities.

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not sure if that's what Diana meant but perhaps there is a problem with :

    I am attentive to emotional relationships between people. I am attentive to who likes who and who dislikes who. I am attentive to people’s needs. I am attentive to proper behavior
    I think there is bit of there.

    I think this is better for :

    I am attentive to the emotional relationships between myself and other people. I am attentive to people's personal character. I am attentive to morally correct behavior.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I prefer this.
    http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/d...ntiation.shtml

    Any other description of // is trite and too much Alpha-Betaism, and I honestly tired of them.
    ex-nameless ixtp
    *** Warning - Risk of poor communication and late response.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I'm not sure if that's what Diana meant but perhaps there is a problem with :

    I am attentive to emotional relationships between people. I am attentive to who likes who and who dislikes who. I am attentive to people’s needs. I am attentive to proper behavior
    I think there is bit of there.

    I think this is better for :

    I am attentive to the emotional relationships between myself and other people. I am attentive to people's personal character. I am attentive to morally correct behavior.
    So are you basically saying that this is a better description:
    I am attentive to emotional relationships between people. I am attentive to proper behavior.

  5. #5
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, I meant that what I did write is better IMO. I thought it was clear but I will be very precise:

    "I am attentive to emotional relationships between people."
    "I am attentive to the emotional relationships between myself and other people."

    I think it's more clearly than if we specify that it's about the relationship between oneself and others.

    "I am attentive to proper behavior".
    "I am attentive to morally correct behavior."

    I think "proper" may be interpreted as both and , and "morally correct" is more clearly .
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have a problem with the word "moral" because it can be seen as something religous by some people, including myself.

  7. #7
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am attentive to people's personal character.
    very good
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  8. #8
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Then use "ethical". Or "principled".

    The problem with "proper" is that it may mean "socially accepted" as in "do not go to a wedding without shaving" kind of stuff, rather than something involving deeper personal ethics.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  9. #9
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I'm not sure if that's what Diana meant but perhaps there is a problem with :

    I am attentive to emotional relationships between people. I am attentive to who likes who and who dislikes who. I am attentive to people’s needs. I am attentive to proper behavior
    I think there is bit of there.

    I think this is better for :

    I am attentive to the emotional relationships between myself and other people. I am attentive to people's personal character. I am attentive to morally correct behavior.

    grrrrrr

    How about: "I am attentive to the relationships between people. I am attentive to people's personal character. I am attentive to the relationships between people and their likes/dislikes."

    (Actually, being attentive to people's personal character is closer to NeFi than just plain Fi. SeFi may make judgements on a person based on that person's actions, but an NeFi would make judgements on a person based on that person's internal character.)

    Note: I still don't agree with these, as they don't particularly follow the information metabolism aspect. However, in the language that people seem to prefer to use on this forum, the above suggestions make more sense.

    Also, I think the terms "emotions", "ethics", "morals", "logic", and "facts" should be scratched from the whole terminology. Not every F type is focused on emotions, ethics, and morals, that is an INTEREST based thing. It's just one of the subjects F types can have an interest in, but it is certainly not their only nor their main interest. Also, even F types would consider themselves logical and basing their decisions based on "facts". Ok, so it's not the external abstract "facts" which T types focus on, it's closer to the internal involved "facts" which F types focus on.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Then use "ethical". Or "principled".

    The problem with "proper" is that it may mean "socially accepted" as in "do not go to a wedding without shaving" kind of stuff, rather than something involving deeper personal ethics.
    To some people including those in the West, what is socially acceptable is linked to morality.

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am attentive to people's personal character. I am attentive to relationships between myself and other people.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  12. #12
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  13. #13
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    I am attentive to people's personal character. I am attentive to relationships between myself and other people.
    It's not JUST about the relationships between ME and others, though. It's about his relationship with her, and her relationship with the other, and his relationship to his car, and her relationship to her clothes, and and and.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  14. #14
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am attentive to other people's personal character. I am attentive to relationships between people and between myself and others.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  15. #15
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  16. #16
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I also think it's important to keep in mind that you should be looking at your behavior when you're at your healthiest and things aren't too stressful in your life.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I took the test again replacing those functional description with http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/d...ntiation.shtml ; I got ISFj answering C is the most difficult, and ISTp with D.
    ex-nameless ixtp
    *** Warning - Risk of poor communication and late response.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    you are defining the functions with those needs?

    what do other people think about that?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So it seems no one can agree on an description.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've come up with this:


    I am attentive to arranging things in the correct order of importance.


    I am attentive to personal relationships and the behavior of people.

  21. #21
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugo
    I've come up with this:


    I am attentive to arranging things in the correct order of importance.


    I am attentive to personal relationships and the behavior of people.
    What is it that separates those two?
    What makes arranging things according to importance exclusive to Ti?
    Why do you have Ti as active use of information while you have Fi as being passive?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what makes Ti different than Fi : things versus relationships. i dont think someone would call relationships a thing. If someone calls a relationship a thing, that person prefers Ti.

    (relationship between persons)

  23. #23
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    what makes Ti different than Fi : things versus relationships. i dont think someone would call relationships a thing. If someone calls a relationship a thing, that person prefers Ti.

    (relationship between persons)
    So why not change:
    I am attentive to arranging things in the correct order of importance.
    to
    I am attentive to the relationships between things.

    So that the choices become
    I am attentive to the relationships between things.
    I am attentive to the relationships between people.

    The more closely the sentence structures match each other, the more distinquished they become from the other.

    (I still don't completely agree with it, but given a choice of things vs people, i'll take people any day!!!)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  24. #24
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    what makes Ti different than Fi : things versus relationships. i dont think someone would call relationships a thing. If someone calls a relationship a thing, that person prefers Ti.

    (relationship between persons)
    So why not change:
    I am attentive to arranging things in the correct order of importance.
    to
    I am attentive to the relationships between things.

    So that the choices become
    I am attentive to the relationships between things.
    I am attentive to the relationships between people.

    The more closely the sentence structures match each other, the more distinquished they become from the other.

    (I still don't completely agree with it, but given a choice of things vs people, i'll take people any day!!!)
    I'd pick things any day. I have no concern what so ever about relationships between people.

    EDIT: I find the idea repulsive.

  25. #25
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,330
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    I'd pick things any day. I have no concern what so ever about relationships between people.

    EDIT: I find the idea repulsive.
    Did what I wrote above in other posts as well as what I wrote in Hugo's "Socionics" thread in general...did any of that make sense to you?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  26. #26
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    I'd pick things any day. I have no concern what so ever about relationships between people.
    Excellent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugo
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Then use "ethical". Or "principled".

    The problem with "proper" is that it may mean "socially accepted" as in "do not go to a wedding without shaving" kind of stuff, rather than something involving deeper personal ethics.
    To some people including those in the West, what is socially acceptable is linked to morality.
    No. Diana has put it right:

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana
    Yes, that is what I meant. I really wouldn't know who liked who, or how someone's emotional relationship with someone else was unless it somehow involved me. Self-centered? perhaps. But it's true for the most part. I do however notice people's character.

    As far as the behavior goes -- well, I personally notice whether an action is morally correct and value that over it being socially correct. Lots of things are socially acceptable that I wouldn't find morally acceptable, and someone or their actions being socially acceptable doesn't even register with me most of the time. BUT, based on responses from esp. the ENFps, that's probably a more personal distinction than anything like that being able to be used to describe the function.
    Hugo

    Let me put it like this.

    "Proper behavior" for :

    "Don't behave like that, what will people think, you are making a bad impression".

    "Proper behavior" for :

    "Don't behave like that, it is wrong, only bad people do it".

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugo
    To some people including those in the West, what is socially acceptable is linked to morality.
    Yes -- "some people" who have as a role function, such as yourself. IXTjs who are > and who have a poor understanding of tend to interpret it as acting in a "socially acceptable" way. This is pointed out in descriptions of as a role function.

    I'm telling you that as long as you don't make the distinction clear you will have > types going for that description.

    EDIT: in at least some versions of his Quadra tests with pictures, McNew got the distinction right IMO.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

Posting Permissions

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