Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Lets Start Being More Serious Now

  1. #1
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Lets Start Being More Serious Now.

    I think that many of us are ready to start micromanaging the functions(you know who you are).

    The dynamics of an individual type, and the dynamics of intertype relations can be better understood if we start looking into the subtleties.

    For example, the fact that certain functions are strong and weak, conscious and unconscious, and, very importantly, accepting and producing.

    It has occured to me that there is not necessarily a "flow" of functions in the individual. The model A is a means of representing a system which has no real beginning or end, but is rather a "resonating"(ISI site) whole, which is subject to alterations in activity of certain functions based upon the addition of charges brought by other types. Like I have said before, its best to not look at a human as having boundaries, but really in the idea that they are a knot in a sort of "informational space".

    The model A is not literal, but is a clever way of representing every element of a single whole. It is an abstract way of thinking with some very fundamental rules.

    Certain functions, it should be noted, appear indifferent. Lytov mentions this idea in his description of the model A.

    It appears that these are(some, if not all) of the indifferent functions:

    and
    and

    and
    and

    Keeping this in mind, support does NOT occur, for example, when the conscious functions of two people, and are matched up, these functions are indifferent. IT occurs in the unconscious of each type.

    If you look at the model-X(Socionics.com, you can find it yourself) it appears that there are strong conscious functions represented(this could by why the line is doubled) as well as the weak unconscious functions. The functions cross paths, but they do not touch one another since the represented conscious and unconscious functions are apparently indifferent to one another.

    So, for example:
    Activation occurs when the weak unconscious estimative(6th) function is stimulated by a strong charge of the same function brought upon by another type. This apparently gives resources to the weaker conscious 4th function- a suppliment for a weak concrete act which, when alone, only exists in an estimative phase. Therefore, it seems, estimation is a weak form of concrete act.

    When this is direct(that is, both functions are "producing") the support is clear and coincides with the "life rhythm" of the individual. This occurs in duality and illusiary relations.

    When it is reversed the activator is accepting where the activated person is producing. Therefore, deducing from my knowledge of the type descriptions, the activated will view the information they are given as changeable. This occurs in Activation, of course, and also Benefit, where the activated is the benefactor.

    If this is true, and I'm almost certain it all is, we can start to really toy with this science now.

  2. #2
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I will add, when you place together two people with two of the same functions, but one is accepting where one is producing, the producing function will regard the accepting function as changeable, like what happens in mirrors and supervision.

    When you place two functions together, one accepting, one producing, both strong, but both of a different variety, such as and a form of creativity seems to develop.

    When both are extraverted, for example, there appears to be a sort of deception, which, if brought into consciousness, such as with quasi-identicals, the individuals will, as I read in the type descriptions on socionics.com, will mistakenly believe that the other type is somehow succeeding more. I'll have to think about this some more and give a clearer explanation.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
    When you place two functions together, one accepting, one producing, both strong, but both of a different variety, such as and a form of creativity seems to develop.
    Different variety as in rational-rrational or introverted-extraverted?

  4. #4
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well it seems, for example, for a function to be creative it must contain a strong accepting function of J and a strong producing of P.

    Let it sink in, I know you can see this, PTL.

  5. #5
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddles W
    Well it seems, for example, for a function to be creative it must contain a strong accepting function of J and a strong producing of P.
    I'll restate, for 2 functions to be creative one must be J, one must be P. one of these must be introverted, one must be extraverted. One must be accepting, one must be producing.

  6. #6
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll also say this:

    The model A is set up to represent the interaction of each function. Funtions which produce are adjacent, whereas functions that are inhibitive do not touch.



    From appearances we might be able to suppose that, using the ILE as an example:

    A strong accepting SEEMS to accept for both strong producing and weak producing

    A weak accepting also does this.

    Perhaps the "inhibition" is represented in the idea that the strong functions are on a different "plane" than weak ones, and therefore need energy given by support in order to produce at the same level as the strong functions.

    If we start thinking this way my guess is that we'll be able to start answering alot more questions.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I understand but let me get the terms straight:

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddles W
    Well it seems, for example, for a function to be creative it must contain a strong accepting function of J and a strong producing of P.
    You use the word function two different ways in this sentence. You mean for two functions within a block to work together creatively correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
    Perhaps the "inhibition" is represented in the idea that the strong functions are on a different "plane" than weak ones, and therefore need energy given by support in order to produce at the same level as the strong functions.
    How does this break down with say in the ILE? What I mean by that is does "correction" create the same "planar delineation"? Are there different planes for , , , and or are they "blocks" on sperate planes?

    I think I begin to see what you are saying but what causes the dichotomies within the individual if it is not some sort of mutual exclusion? It seems by using the ego you create an inability to use either the superid or superego functions but if all that matters is amount of stimulation then that no longer applies.

  8. #8
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ the first question, Yes, I apologize, I meant block, not function.

    as for the second question, my words were more inuitive and theoretical, not something to take too sersiously. Just ignore positions of functions and think in terms of strengths and weaknesses, accepting and producing.

  9. #9
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll add- The names of the functions seem extremely important.

  10. #10
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    got, i really got to log in.

    The names of the function blocks, that is.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    WW - you are so entp!!
    Entp
    ILE

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah I understand I'm just trying to get your thoughts because I tried to do something similar and I couldn't figure out WHY the functions are strong/weak. Have you any insights?

  13. #13
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My guess is that Judgement and perception are the two distinct ways the body either accepts or produces info.

    So for an ENTp the perception, which is their dominant way of accepting information, has two sides. The stronger side inhibits the weaker side, which is extraverted sensing. "weak" it is just the half of perception that is being inhibited since the stronger side is somehow accepting more info.

    So imagine it like a perception or judgements mechanism in the brain. It accepts two forms of information but one of these forms is more powerful than the other forms.


    so with super-egos, for example, the strong charge of each individual makes everything go wrong. They deal with the same situation differently and therefore inhibit one anothers ability to complete a task since they share the same space and deal with this limited space differently. They, in some regards, compete over different sides of the same (extraverted)perception.

    like, for example, when i asked my ESFp ex what she wanted to do, and she said she wanted to grind, and this disgusted me. We both inhibited one another. inhibition, i suppose, is sort of a disagreement.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But does it happen with corrective functions too? Because if it just happenend with inhibitive functions then wouldn't you get a model that was like this:

    over , (equally strong as ) over , (again equal strength) over , and ('') over ?

    If it included correction too then the model would look like this:

    { (level 1 strength) over , (also lvl 1) over }

    over


    { (lvl 2 strength) over , and (also lvl 2) over }

    None of those looks like the model we have...

    If you included to the above then you get our model but the problem comes with the question which level is more influential contradictory processing in form or in type (both share the same i/e resources or both share the same j/p resources) or both share the same subfield resources (function n/n, t/t, and so forth)?

    Does that make sense?

    What is the nature of what makes a dichotomy a dichotomy in the self?

  15. #15
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well I'll have to take some time and look at what you're saying because I'm not quite sure what you mean.

    But still, what you're wondering looks alot like what I have been wondering myself.

    Right now I'll say, very intuitively is that to me the model-A looks like a perfect paradox.



    This is very intuitive, not necessarily correct but seemingly so to me:

    Conscious Ego functions are equally strong as their contrary ID functions. The contrary functions, that is, the 7th and 8th, seem to be the other side of the reality you exist in. When you put pressure on the outside world it will put pressure back (in and out, in and out, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.) so its sort of like the unconscious are the dents reality puts in you when you use alot of strength, the stronger the function the more dents(personal knowledge). Therefore, it "corrects" your behavior. The weaker functions consequently have less dents, therefore you learn less.

    You look at any Se type you will notice how they correct their behavior through appreciating what they are forcing on. The more they force, the more contrary info is given. An Si type will appreciate, they will take in the harmonies, but if this "pleasure" if you want to call it that, starts to go away, they know just how to get it back, therefore there will be Se, but only to correct their losses. When the Se hits Si resistance(contradiction, ego's desires), the Si can then return to accepting. This explanation is not fully satisfactory for me, but its probably one the right track.

    correction basically is what we use to get what we want. It isn't just in intertype relations, I am almost sure of that, but is something which also occurs at the individual level.

    So the "inhibition" occurs when the "inhibited" blocks receive too much stimulation than they can handle.

    Support occurs when the Weaker functions of the super-ego receive a strong corrective charge from the Ego of the dual.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    See I think type is based on 3 basic things:

    The --- (unordered) or --- (also unordered) divide

    as a subset of that the - (unordered) or - ('') divide if in the first group / the - ('') or - divide if in the second group

    then as a subset of that functional dominance of the inhibitive functions ( or for example) this causes the "arrangement" of the functions

    and lastly the i or e dominance in manifestation of behavior.

    after that I bet there is another dichotomy it is just that not as many people have "developed" to that extent so it has gone unnoticed to an extent in part because people were not able to pick up on the subtle way it manifests.

    Maybe this is why SmilingEyes thinks I am ENTj. Because I am pooping out and in some bastardized version of the model seen here:



    Now all of this is affected by certain independent variables of the system. These include:

    * Magnitude of stimulation received
    * RATE of stimulation (magnitude per time interval)
    * and a vector property that I am not sure of that I'll call directional energy flow for now

    If the energy in any moment is too great then the functions can become too "charged" and the repulsive inhibitive process that occurs is exacerbated by that.

    Amount of repulsion between the inhibitive functions is directly proportional to the stimulation either of them receives. So lets say and are at energy state X. As |X| tends toward infinity the repulsion between those function increases. Eventually this indirectly affects the corrective functions and thus the suppot and understanding functions also. As repulsion between the functions increases the mind "seperates" and breaks down. This is what causes insanity.

    So long as the amount of stimulation is greater than the rate of processing per unit interval the person will continue to be insane. That is why people isolate themselves when they are depressed. They want to decrease the amount of stimulation to a level that they can process. They need a period of time in which the net energy in the system is negative.

    This however is not all inherent and "stuck." The rate of processing for any function can be increased by "excercising it" with data of the corresponding kind. The rate of processing increases most when the amount of stimulation is within a fairly small standard deviation of the current "cap" of stimulation possible. But since the "cap" in constantly increasing minutely the standard deviation also increases in the amount of magnitude capable of being processed while the percentage relative to the entirety stays the same.

    ...

    Lastly the directional value of the stimulation. I think the functions should be seen as vectors. N is one kind of directional processing and S is another. But they are both on the same "line" like east-west. The same goes for T-F. But with i and e it is slightly different. I need to think about that more or else I will BS some crap that sounds stupid to me get frustrated and delete this post. Do you have any insights on it?

    Wow I just BSed a lot but it came out pretty good. Maybe even better than I intended. Does this make sense?

    The problem as I see it is finding a way to test for magnitude of stim., current capable rate of processing, and the vector states of the processing. We already have the vector states down (to a degree) but we need the other 2 to really get going.

    I also would like to think of a way to model the change of processing ability in the individual (not just change of the "ceiling" of stimulation capable of being reached). This reminds me of physics. First you have distance, then the anti-derivative in time called speed, then the anti-derivative of rate called acceleration. I think the property called "data" is the magnitude I'm refering to while it's anti-derivative in time is the rate of data processing and the anti-derivative of that is change in rate of processing.

    But the problem is we need FORMULAS for this crap and I don't have a lab gah!!!!!

    Oh well ttyl.

    -Pedro

  17. #17
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    PTL, fascinating ideas!

    I am quite busy lately but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring them.

    They have a striking resemblance to what I have been thinking as well.

    More to come within the next couple of days!

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I will definitely be waiting and looking forward to it. Don't forget! I will try to make sure this thread does not die.

  19. #19
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [EDIT 3/2009: THIS IS NOT A FULL EXPLANATION. THIS IS A PRETENTIOUS AND NEUROTIC CONCLUSIVE BASED UPON HALF-TRUTHS AND OVERCOMPENSATED DOUBT. THIS IS ALL ABOUT BEING A FLAWED HUMAN.

    IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE THAT THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN FUNCTIONS. THE IDEA THAT FUNCTION SHAPES ARE LIKE RECEPTOR SITES IS ARBITRARY. THIS POST PRECEDES THE DISCOVERY OF THE DISPLACEMENT LAWS. PRECEDING POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE A MORE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION THAN THIS ONE. PTL/ScienceAsMagic ALSO HAS SOME VERY GOOD THOUGHTS ON THIS MATTER. SO, AGAIN, MY APOLOGIES ON THIS POST; IT DOES NOT REPRESENT ANYTHING CONCLUSIVE.]


    It's all stuff we all sorta knew in some way or another(any of us that weren't pre-occupied with something more complicated and, in the end, quite worthless[edit: although I'm sure we have gained a little something from it])

    It can be seen, and I'm sure its true, that no function exists or interacts with any function other than its own "contrary" that is the Introverted or Extraverted version of itself - . They form a complete unit so long as they are both the same strength.

    They all exist in their own little space, or area(something most of us knew already but were overcomplicating). Since we are looking at a concrete system, we are looking at concrete rules.

    This explains the function shapes, which are just like those little things we used to play with when we were little babies. See, we are like little babies trying to figure this system out. One could write a whole analogy to us, by chance coming to this simple and ridiculous conclusion. Oh how it must have been so similar when we were lil' babies. Oh, wow, the square goes into the square hole!

    Only can "fit in" , nothing else goes there! You go, you go try and see if it fits. goes into , right? um, no.

    So never ever touches . NEVER. This statement is basically meaningless


    It has nothing to do with functions doing anything other than being strong or weak, direct or reversed (+ or -) which tells you who has the "upper hand". why not? how is "upper hand" an objective terminology?


    mirrors both have upper hand,
    supervision one person has upper hand,
    conflict, no one has upper hand since they are both weak in the same areas.

    etc... etc... etc...

    and correction, well, it just fills the void. the empty shape. + =all the information is complete. Ni and Ne, in terms of type, are volatile and incompatible since both types have contrary attitudes.

    some of you may have known this, some of you may not have. I'm not saying it isn't something you didn't already know, but I don't know of anyone that made the connection.

    If someone did, I stand "corrected".

    and another thing- Give a bit more thought to the Time, Space, Matter, and Energy thing. Might make more sense now.

    Edit:
    And this is the explanation of the model X, as well. it has to do with how
    blocks "fit" together.

    THIS POST IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT SOMEONE DOES WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR MIND
    Last edited by Waddlesworth; 03-21-2009 at 08:41 PM. Reason: REASONS ARE CITED IN THE POST

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Rudely Butting in on Others Conversations...

    An interesting Question and Answer appeared on socionics.com

    Question #1119891784

    Q. Hello, I have been interested in socionics for about a year now, and have often searched through many pages over the internet, read much Freud and Jung, and have attempted to assemble the theory for myself due to lack of information. It has been a fun journey, but one which also leaves me with many questions. Here are some of my biggest questions: [1] About the "strong accepting" and "strong producing" concept which seems to be an integral part of the theory of information metabolism. There are, to my knowledge no translations of Kepinski's theory publically available in English. Is this still accepted as part of the backbone of Socionics? How exactly is this concept (from an intuitive standpoint) related to the concept of spontaneous realization? How does it, in theory, occur? I have my speculations but would appreciate a more professional explanation. [2] The model A. I have read much about informational rings and have been curious about the ideas behind them. I have also been curious as to why the model A is set up as it is, the top row reading from left to right, the second row right to left etc... why is this? [3] I have been curious as to the reasoning behind the interaction of conscious and unconscious. I am aware that strong unconscious functions correct strong conscious ones, and from Dimitri Lytov's site the weak unconscious are labeled "suggestive" 5th, and "Estimative" 6th. Is this because it is a weak form of correction? Basically, I am looking for a more in depth explanation of the theory behind the models. I have been piecing it together as much as possible myself, but still have many questions. Any comments would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! -- Steve, ENTp


    A. I would like to answer much of my own question by saying that the function symbols are analogous to those little blocks we used to fit inside those shaped holes when we were babies. Functions only "fit" together if they are the same shape. In this you have correction, support, inhibition, and understanding. This is all dependent upon strengths of functions. In this sort of thinking, I need not elaborate, much of the answers can be found on one's own. There is no "order" of functions, merely strengths and weaknesses. This is helpful in understanding the "Model X". -- Steve, ENTp

    http://www.socionics.com/advan/qa.htm?1119891784

    So since this seems to be related to this discussion, I thought I might as well post it here. And because I have at least myself used the phrase "order of functions" I thought I should try to clarify myself. Socionics.com uses the Model X which is apparently a modified version of the original Model A. What seems to add to the confusion is that different sites use different models, and the Model X that socionics.com prefers is not properly explained on the site. All I could find was this article: When you look past the acronym which appears to be based on this Model X, but even that is not explicitly stated.

    What I meant with "the order of functions" that seems to confuse people, was simply that when we encounter people displaying certain behavior which we can with some degree of confidence classify as manifestations of a certain function Fi or Fe or something else, we cannot always tell if this behavior or function is, for example, a manifestation of their first function, = the program function according to the Model A on Dmitri Lytov's site http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index-type.html, or whether the behavior and functions I seem to observe are actually a case of someone displaying their third function, or the role function according to the Model A. Apparently according to the standard model the first function should always be stronger than the third function - and if this is not the case you have been mistyped - but especially for outside observers this is not always easy to tell, as people often like to display their role function to strangers - as we learned for instance from this post by discojoe.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  21. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What about my earlier critiscism that the above would be a model that does not reflect the conflicting nature of functional processes?

  22. #22
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Curious Soul, that would be my question also, my answer to my own question.

  23. #23
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    PTL, alot of your conclusions definitely led me to this conclusion. Such as your talk about vectors and how you see it in axes. I mean, that is right. It is really how I figured this out. The cool thing is that the function shapes take any uncertainty out of the conclusions we both made.

    Such as how in one of my earlier posts i noted how correction works, which seems to apply to this model. when two strong accepting charges of opposite E/I values but the same function meet, they form correction. So Ni can be seen as a receptor site for Ne. Your consciousness can only exist on one side.

    Well in terms of conflict I think that this model is fine. It is just really abstract. In many ways it is all imaginary, looking at "functions" as elements, or substances of consciousness. Its sort of like they(the functions) are receptors or something.

    It reminds me of the little symbols they use in biology or chemistry to represent molecules in the body. which can give one a whole new approach at seeing socionics... although im not sure it is a true one.

    See, with conflict, for example, you may have a strong in person A and a weak in person B. If it is conscious in both parties, one will "inhibit" the other, perhaps robbing it of the unconscious before the weaker one will get to it(or "draw" it in-greater suction power wins. The more suction power, the more "personal knowledge"). Wildly imaginative, yet it makes sense. Now there is the accepting and producing difference that I will have to think about- but I think that it is significant in understanding the difference between super-ego, which is direct, and conflict relationships, which is reversed. in either case, however, the individuals are each consciously strong where the other is weak.

    But really, this does explain pretty much everything. Like the model X, and how duals basically interlock structurally. So the hidden agenda is creatively adapted to, and the dual seeking function is strengthened consciously by the dual. It is all a matter now of understanding this intuitively... being able to understand the relationship between conscious and unconscious, which is becomming more and more obvious now.

    But yes, I'm Steve, ENTp. The answer came to me while I was writing the above post and couldn't resist answering my own question on Socionics.com.

  24. #24
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To even further specify and perfect:

    and
    and
    and
    and
    and
    and
    and
    and

    do not appear to interact at all, not as it appears to me now.

    This, however, is interaction:

    and
    and
    and
    and
    (think about that cube on the old socionics.com)

    It is all about correction. This is why mirrors, although consisting of the same conscious information, are still mutual "correction". The difference in IJ and EP and EJ and IP is about + and -. This is basically explaining everything. Seek with nobility and you shall find.

    So, total understanding in identical relations means that every block is filled fully, conscious into unconscious. The skills taught by the identicals to one another serve as unconscious personal knowledge.

    This makes distance aspects useful to us now. If you know what I am saying, then welcome to the elite(relatively speaking).

    It's about "plugging". Filling the receptors.

    so, here we have Socionics.

    It looks right.

    More to come.

    One more thing. I am noticing very simple things that could easily have been explained to us by the experts. Why they weren't is something I am very curious about.

  25. #25
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A note on distance aspects: When a conscious function gains a (+) charge it is robbing information from the corresponding unconscious function, making it (-). So an active program function means that, relatively speaking, the unconscious function is (-) until the creative function, which is normally (-) become positive, turning the concrete act (-). Its about the activation of functions. This can get pretty abstract but its all about the relativity of the charges based upon "information" activity.

    Alright, so I have read that contrarys are the worst teachers? Functionally speaking, why is this?:


    If you note, by function contrarys are strong and weak in the same places.

    They exist on the other side of reality- the unconscious half of one another.

    Now a conscious + - contrary with + -

    The information transfer occurs consciously, since consciously each type is in a correctible position relative to one another. There conscious blocks fill and attract one another. They do not inhibit one another since they are not correcting one another's weak points, which occurs unconsciously in Super-Ego. A similar thing occurs consciously in Duality, but the correction is helpful since both partners help one another's weak areas. These two contrarys are consciously correcting one anothers strong points. So nomatter what the issue at hand, they cannot see eye to eye. One exists in the outer world consciously, where the other one lives in the inner world.

    This also occurs, as stated before, in identical relationships, but the transfer of information occurs unconsciously. Therefore the conscious function is not interrupted and "inhibited", it is
    fed personal knowledge via the weak 5th and strong 7th function and given creative examples to absorb via the weak 6th and strong 8th.

    So the problem in contrarys lies in the fact that there is only conscious informational exchange. This causes a lack of intellectual freedom on both parties.

    It is an issue of correlations versus possibilites.

    Now how about the mirror of your contrary- the quasi identical?
    This is an interesting dynamic. Where one is theoretically (-) correlative, the other is "photographically" (+) possibility oriented. So it is a conscious correction, but one where the other is productively correcting the other's accepting behavior.
    How does this manifest?

    The best answer can be found on the Socionics.com intertype descriptions:

    One partner may think that the other partner complicates simple things and simplifies the important points, trying to deliberately confuse and mislead them. Both partners are convinced that whatever their partner was trying to say, could be explained in a different and more understandable way.
    But this system clearly demonstrates itself. An intuitive understanding of the meanings of Introversion and Extraversion, as well as Accepting and Producing, will be helpful in use of this system.

    I'm not going to make anymore posts on this thread for the sake that all of the useful information has already been given. I just hope that everyone realized that the idea that functions "interlock" structurally is real. This isn't some random scheme of mine, but is a working system which explains the reasoning behind those "funny looking shapes".

    It may be interesting to see how these conclusions were met between the interaction PTL and I have had. It is eerie at times how close some of the conclusions get in the beginning- as if just touching the point. "If it were a snake It'd bite you!"

    I hope it is understandable. There haven't been any comments by other forum members, so I'm not sure if it makes sense to everyone. Since all of the information is already here and demonstrated in several examples I don't see a need to discuss it further, but if there are questions, do ask.

    As far as I am aware it is the only place where you can currently find this information in English. Perhaps Admin would like to put this explanation on his resources page.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    (Sry for being gone so long)

    I'm not sure if you get my correction. If all but the i/e aspect of a specific function is inert to it then what keeps the personality from "splitting apart"? Why don't we have intuitive (extravert/introvert)s rather than ILE and so forth? If T is inert to N then how do you explain the apparent communication between them (within the individual)? Insanity seems like the "splitting apart" of the functions in the individual. I can't exatly explain it but / seem like the inverse (?) of / (depending on type of course). For example for the ENTP would be the inverse (?) of .

  27. #27
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is definitely something I have wondered as well. Like, for example "how does creativity work if the functions aren't attached to one another?" That's one of the questions I asked on Socionics.com and they didn't provide an answer for,as if it weren't a good enough question or something.


    Like, how can a J and P function work together if they don't "Fit" in the same place? How is there an information transfer? Is there more of an informational "wave-particle duality" sorta going on here?

    It's a tough question but I'm sure there is a simple answer. I actually have thought about this and I have some other somewhat vague speculations, but I really want to try and have a concrete explanation. I'll get back to you with more details very soon.

    But this "fitting" of functions is definitely an answer to many questions. It gives us the ability to "freeze" the types and analyze them based upon corresponding strengths and weaknesses.

    So it explains intertype relations pretty well, but leaves more questions in terms of accepting to producing transfers. We all know its all happening at
    once, resonating, but we do not have a structural example of what creativity is... or do we? perhaps its staring us right in the face :wink:

    But probably the best way to answer many of the questions is to have a really deep understanding of the definitions as well. Which takes time. Words are the means to explanation- sorta the pillars this whole theory is held up by.

  28. #28
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Perhaps we can look at this in questions and responses.

    We know, for example, that the J functions are in the same category- whereas the P functions also are.

    So they are the same, but once you break them down you have again another dichotomy. It is about depth, how deep are you going to dive? PTL, you have brought this up before, I believe.

    So we have the whole, but the whole can be broken in half. Sorta like "Yin" and "Yang"

    So we have the general dichotomies of J and P. And these are different, one is more qualitative, one is more quantitative.

    And so these dichotomies even furth break down. J has F and T, well, it is manifest- F is qualia, T is quanta.

    And so P also breaks down. P has S and N. Now, which is more qualia, which is more quanta? S seems quantitative, it is not comparative, but rather deals with the exactness. N, however, is qualitative, able to draw comparisons much better.

    So, it is sort of a Quanta-Qualia dichotomy. S is more Quanta than N, but T is more Quanta than S, since it is in J and S is in P.

    So what we seem to have is a matter of perpective. IT is a nomenclature based upon a means of categorization which has no boundaries(it can be placed upon any system, regardless of depth)



    So look at it this way, perhaps? Ignore I/E for now- Although it is extremely important.

    F= Quanta qualia
    S=Qualia quanta

    Bearing in mind I am not speaking in true socionics terms, but am just playing with the information.

    You have initial dichotomy, then you have a sub categorie within it.
    Now what is the manifest relationship between these two functions?

    We do not know... why is this that we do not know? Because, we do not know which is stronger. P and J are equals. Quanta and qualia are also equals. So the only way to find the answer is to ask "which is stronger?"

    and then, let us pretend we have found the answer.

    Strong F=Quanta qualia
    Weak S=Qualia quanta

    so, we know which is stronger, which is more powerful. But now we must ask: How do two different types of things interact?

    If we think in terms of black and white, let us say Quanta is black, Qualia is white.

    Well, if this is so, then S would be a Light Grey, whereas F would be a Dark Grey.

    See this?
    (capital denotes general, lower denotes specific sub-category)

    Quanta qualia= Dark grey (black with a little white)
    Qualia quanta= Light grey (white with a little black)

    What you have here is a system which combines general and specific into a whole. It is definitely, by this analysis, resonating. It transcends many boundaries.

    Now, We know by Socionics that in one ego a strong J of F implies a weak J of T, so:

    Weak T= Quanta quanta= Black
    Strong N= Qualia qualia=White

    See, now we have problems. So how does this matter or work. Strength implies weakness, of course. For something to be strong something else must be weak, but that thing must be close enough for comparison.

    True comparison only occurs between identical things. Such as “what direction are they going in?” (E/I) or “how strong is one to the other? (S/W)”

    But now we must take in to consideration Accepting and Producing. So, what is this, by definition? To accept something, and then to produce something out of that requires a process. How can Black produce White? That is, T produce N? You see, this involves exchange with other functions. So We have a chaos, yet one which is harmonious within.

    I have been reaching quite a few conclusions based upon this way of thinking that I will post soon.

    Basically, what I am saying is that there are "shades" of meaning. I am absolutely not saying that this is the way Socionics is set up, but in this thinking I am coming to conclusions which are explaining Socionics as bit better.

    This is explaining Active Will, Authority, Phobia and Neuroses.

Posting Permissions

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