attn: SEI ISFp

[Kill4Me]

post images here of your implicit field dynamics...

[Olduvai]

"Implicit Field Dynamics" takes this image:

And from it, derives this image:

"Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics"

"plus-Si" = "deduced doings in or of the conditions"
"minus-Si" = "deduced undoings in or of the conditions"

"change in temperature, 'effect on conditions', 'how conditions will change', 'what developments will occur'"

[Olduvai]

I'd like you to go more in-depth. Why is it that in your understanding Si goes from being explicit to implicit?

Because every ego consists of one explicit function and one implicit function; explicit functions procure their information from the environment, while implicit functions procure their information from various "operations" performed by the brain.

[Olduvai]

Hm, not consistent with Model A.

How?

So you say that an ego necessarily must have an implicit and an explicit function, then.

That's just how I put it all together; I have no idea how any of this relates to the actual physical structures that perceive and process information.

if it the target is someone else, does Si internally "emulate" how the target feels after experiencing some stimuli which the Si-user also has experienced before?

Think of it more as an automatic and mechanical process performed by the physical brain. Think "neuroscience".

[Olduvai]

Inconsistent since A says one can have two explicit or implicit ego functions (ST & NF)

Whatev. It's not like Model A or intertype relations would crumble if I said otherwise.

Furthermore, the idea that ST = all explicit and NF = all implicit seems kinda "shallow" to me, like it relies too much on "folk wisdom" about the nature of intuition. There is nothing "special" or "powerful" about intuition; it is just another way of looking at the world.

All in all, I think my definitions are better because they explain extroversion and introversion.

EDIT:
It's not really inconsistent with Model A. SLI in Model A is still Si+Te, I just think that Xi = implicit and Xe = explicit. So the disagreement is with Aushra's definitions, not with Model A.

[Zero11]

Objective Elements are not colored by personal interpretation they are just blocked with a Subjective one which would take the lead in form of Introversion which makes it hard to understand only one Element and therefore any other patterns that come with it.

[Olduvai]

Interesting. How do they explain I & E? Sine you brought it up, it must connect to the explicit/implicit split somehow.

I guess it's just another dichotomy for them.

N is abstract, so ofc implicit.

This is the kind of "folk wisdom" I was referring to. Why must intuition be abstract?

F... yeah, it works there too.

Perhaps for Fi, but I don't think Fe can be implicit. Fe-people are all about behaviors, which I'm pretty sure are explicit.

how ownership and/or placements of objects may suggest sth else at large

That sounds like Ti. Se+Ti, to be specific. Ne+Ti would be like "how fixed states of affairs may suggest something else at large". Ne+Fi would be like "how fixed states of affairs may suggest something about the objects involved".

(Se) and Te by the far-off consequences of some logical chain (Te) or system (Ti) but that seems like it would be covered by 3 or 4-Dimensionality.

Te is just "what objects do", or "what objects are doing", or "what objects have done". Explicit, explicit, explicit.

[Olduvai]

There's also https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intuition

Immediate cognition without the use of consciousrationalprocesses.

Here is my definition for Ne:

"Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics"

"state of temperature, 'things together', 'full scene', 'whole impression', 'obvious structure', 'these go together'"

Seems to line up. Here's Ni:

"Ni" = "Implicit Object Dynamics"

"'you're thinking this way', what an object will do, what an unseen object does, 'you're doing this because of that'"

This also seems to line up, since an Ni-user "just knows" the unseen doings of an object.

I can see why you would say Fe is explicit and Fi implicit tho. However, some would disagree. There are stories on this forum of EIEs acting like they can read ppl's minds, which would seem a decidedly implicit act. Or will you attribute that solely to Ni?

I think behaviors and abilities are the result of a "unified set" of cognitive functions. I definitely think "reading minds" is Ni-related, but I also think it has in part to do with Fi, at least in the case of EIE. Fi grants the user a static picture of a person; Ni allows the user to pick up on the "implicit" (in this case, "internal" might be the better word to use) dynamic properties of "individuals" (objects), and the "internal dynamic properties of individuals" could include thoughts or feelings. Here is how I visually represent EIE, along with IEE for reference:

Strength Valued Unvalued

4 Fe Ne
3 Ni Fi
2 Se Te
1 Ti Si

4 Ne Fe
3 Fi Ni
2 Te Se
1 Si Ti

(This is why quasi-identicals are sympathetic toward one another, why they understand each other's points of view so well)

[Kill4Me]

"Implicit Field Dynamics" takes this image:

And from it, derives this image:

Thanks, Johannes. I've told you before that I think you're SEI.

[Olduvai]

If you were to make an even shorter summary, what would it be? Gestalt impression? Or simply impression?

I don't like the connotation of "vagueness" that "impression" carries. I'm usually right when I say "these go together". Furthermore, any vagueness on my part could be because I am Ne+Fi; Ne+Ti would likely be more precise.

If "impression" means "appears to be", then couldn't any type experience "impressions"?

In which case impressionistic art can be said to be Ne-ish in your understanding?

idk, it's a possibility

Furthermore would Ne say stuff like "from a short glimpse it seemed to be an art exhibition of some sort" and "it was like a warzone in there"?

Ne+Fi would definitely say stuff like that.

Certain forum members like Ineffable would vouch for Ne operating on hunches which can lead to a strong desire to cover all possibilities and unentangle everything (opposite of Ni's crypticness, iow).

I could see it. If I recall correctly, Delta NFs and Alpha NTs are "researchers" or whatever.

It surpasses S in the long run. No coincidence that most famous scientists, intellectuals, etc are typed N.

Both Se and Ne are concerned with "explicit" and "static" properties, but Se only sees individual objects; Ne sees objects not as individual objects, but as belonging to sets. Se finds properties of individual objects; Ne finds properties of sets. It's hard to say which is more beneficial, though.

It is also more special/abnormal as Ns seem to struggle more socially, particularly NTs.

"Social adeptness" is a function of an individual's particular type and the "type mix" of their social environment. Alpha NTs are Fe-valuing, and where I'm from, Fe seems to reign supreme.

IIRC, the A in Model A derives from Aushra, so Model Aushra.

Right, but Model A does not depend on Aushra's definitions.

I was asking how the change in your differing (from model A) understanding of explicit/implicit elps explain extro and intro better. Or maybe you didn't misunderstand me back there...

Here:

So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes". Hence "extroversion" and "introversion".

But F is also about creating an internally consistent feeling state, yes? You could try limiting that to Fi, but I disagree. Fe-ers like to calibrate too. I reject logic as implicit as it doesn't follow the definition.

Doesn't everyone want to be happy? Isn't that what you mean by "internally consistent feeling state"?

It also seems contradictory to call it sensing, but then turn around and call it implicit. By definition, it would be much harder to act on implicit information consistently

Here is the definition for "implicit":

: understood though not clearly or directly stated

: not affected by doubt

Pragmatists are said to act quickly and effectively so that they make a practical difference.

I'll demonstrate how this is possible for SLI. Here are the definitions:

"Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics"

"change in temperature, 'effect on conditions', 'how conditions will change', 'what developments will occur'"

"Te" = "Explicit Object Dynamics"

"what this does, what that does, 'I am doing this', 'I will do this', 'why don't you do this', 'it won't do this', 'because this does that', 'I wouldn't do that', 'it did this'"

So SLI sees "what objects are doing" and from there he deduces "how conditions will change".

An older forum member, smilingeyes, was of the opinion that NFs don't do much of anything, which fits stereotypes too.

There could be a correlation but idk. Not gonna lie though, reading this made me chuckle because it is so true of me

[Olduvai]

Thanks, Johannes. I've told you before that I think you're SEI.

You're free to think that. And you're welcome

Perhaps I am an IEE of the "Harmonizing" subtype:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._DCNH_Subtypes

[Beautiful sky]

My SEI friend when she looks at her dog posts these pics on FB; she adopted this dog when she held him he's obviously not the most gorgeous dog aesthetically but he felt warm in my friends hands and the more she touched him the more the direct image of her dog disappeared and what became loved by her is the image of the dog that reproduced in her mind. The soft and warm hearted Simon, her dog
"Got he teeth cleaned, blood-drawn, vaccines given and is starting a new diet... It's been a rough day for Simon"

[Olduvai]

Sure, but you included "general impression" in your definition. I assume Ne-egos have the best impressions cuz of static snapshot + generality.

Apparently I disagree with myself. I might remove "general impression", but idk. I think this is what I was doing when I came up with those phrases:

In this way, by mentally superimposing multiple projections of the same object, Holographists reach a holistic view.

Well, logicals are said to have more interpersonal problems, so their interactions would be less smooth.

True, but if they are surrounded by sympathetic types then their impact will be significantly lessened, possibly to the point of nonexistence.

SFs seem the most natural types to me, NTs the least. But yeah, a fish outta water is gonna struggle.

I think Delta STs are the most "natural" types. Here's Meged and Ovcharov on Si-ISTp:

An original personality with a strong personality, but because of modesty and indecision often remains in the shadows.

Seems like implicit functions would "humanize" things more, e.g. personify prosopopoeia Pareidolia Apophenia

This is a very interesting observation, Ath. I've often wondered how ethical functions have anything to do with people.

You say Si/Ni are implicit. Some would say they have an almost solipsistic quality to them. Do you agree - and does it relate to implicitness?

Insofar as "solipsistic" means "self-absorption, an unawareness of the views or needs of others", then possibly, seeing as "implicit" functions are "introverted" functions.

Seems like ethical emotivists could take the most direct way to happiness if it was their goal. There's also this and the following (which seems more like true happiness to me): this

I disagree with this statement:

But the researchers, who looked at a large sample of people over a month-long period, found that happiness is associated with selfish “taking” behavior and that having a sense of meaning in life is associated with selfless “giving” behavior

I don't think that's true at all. "Happiness" is "doing whatever brings satisfaction".

Did your line of thinking start with zero-ing in on the fact that we can't see any individual function in a vacuum, thus we must try to disentangle how it is "tainted" by the other ego function? For if not, how come Aushra and the others were (according to you) mistaken?

That's pretty much it! Aushra defined "Ne" as "Implicit Object Statics" because she thought "Ne" is all about the "essence" of an object; but really, the "essence" of an object is an Ne+Fi thing. Think about it: if Ne finds explicit static properties of sets and if Fi finds implicit static properties of objects, then the "essence" of an object is "what set it belongs to".

It does make sense from a "balance/yin-yang" pov that an ego would need both explicit and implicit, but not if the individual if seen as a subset of a larger unit i.e. duality.

Here's IEE/SLI duality:

Strength Valued Unvalued / Valued Unvalued

IEE / SLI

4 Ne Fe / Si Ti
3 Fi Ni / Te Se
2 Te Se / Fi Ni
1 Si Ti / Ne Fe

The "strength" values for each function perfectly complement each other: even though Ti has a strength of 4 for SLI and of 1 for IEE, Ti is for SLI an "unvalued function".

Now let's get a closer look by analyzing the definitions of the leading functions:

"Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics"

"Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics"

So "Ne" and "Si" both look for properties of "fields" or "conditions", but one finds "explicit" and "static" properties while the other finds "implicit" and "dynamic" properties. There is no overlap, and thus they complement each other.

[Olduvai]

Regarding mindreading, since anndelise made the observation that Fe-ers do it, either she is wrong about a-SFs, or they do it in a different way from b-NFs. How does implicit field dynamics (of the + variant, if you wanna go model B) assist in mind-reading and how does the way it work differ from b-NF's Ni-charged Fe?

I'm not sure I agree that a-SFs (nice abbreviation ) are very adept at mind-reading, but I could be wrong. I'll have to pay closer attention next time I'm out in the wild.

What do you think of this old post as indicating Fe is implicit, or do you think SF's b-NFness biases her description?

Not sure what part you're referring to, but I did find this part a bit amusing:

Most of the "serious" socionists who claim that type doesn't change are in full defense mode when someone asks them to actually define what they mean about type and refuse to do so. It's basically the only way to maintain the illusion and continue the loony-talk.

If only I were around back then, I would've simply replied "biological neural networks, man".

Someone over at Ganin's site suggested INXx males are the most likely to get bullied. Think there could be a correlation? ESXx as the most comfortable with aggression, confrontation, etc makes some sense.

I'd again say it depends on type and type mix of social environment. I'd also like to mention gender as a possible determinant; I think male feelers probably have it worse than female feelers or male thinkers. My question is this: is it worse on average to be a male feeler or a female thinker?

XXFx are moe likely to just act i.e. instinct/impulse. XXTx need some sort of artificial logical system/understanding/w/e to guide their action. If NTs are called "researchers", how can they not be the most artificial types? Research brings to mind science, which is peak artificiality.

Fair enough.

Gulenko says result is natural, process artificial. Process is subjective, result objective:

Interesting! Could that be how he came up with this list:

ESE - natural, simple, artless emotions.
EIE - artificial, crafted, playacting emotions.
LII - natural, basic logic; the logic of natural laws.
LSI - artificial logic, the logic of regulations and decrees created and adopted by people.
SLE - natural strength, which subordinates those who are weaker.
SEE - artificial strength, which allows to exert influence over those who are more powerful.
IEI - natural sense of time, the course of events unfolding into the future.
ILI - artificial sense of time, the course of events oriented at the past.
IEE - natural ideas, naturally possible prospects.
ILE - artificial ideas, alternatives of the impossible, of the hyperreality.
SLI - natural sensory experiences and comfort.
SEI - artificial sensing, created, crafted comfort.
LIE - natural benefit, attained by personal, individual enterprise.
LSE - artificial benefit, derived through organization of labor.
ESI - natural relations, dedicated and loving his own, rejecting of outsiders.
EII - artificial relations, forgives transgressions, treats outsides as his own.

It's crazy, but I actually agree with most of his assertions here.

Fe/Ti-ers are subjectivists, and before the most recent prune, someone in chatbox said some source (Gulenko?) claims result Se/Ni-ers are the most natural, process Ne/Si-ers the most civilizational. Thus, in my pov, peak artificiality /subjectivity is alpha + NT + process = ILE, and at bottom is ESI. It is easy to see certain types, like EIE, as highly artificial or insincere, even as EIEs probably humanizes reality the most. ILE subverts it the most with their inventions.

I could definitely see it.

If IEI is the most useless type, then them having such numbers flies in the face of darwinism, meaning their existence (like all other INXxs, maybe) depends on some artificial support.

Or perhaps Mother Nature just hasn't had enough time to weed them out. I do kinda think the Delta quadra is on its way out, unfortunately.

What would you type Jung btw

EIE, ILI, or LII.

As for what you said, will satisfaction-seeking devolve into an overly "masturbatory" lifestyle?

Well, I guess if you see your lifestyle as "masturbatory" then you really aren't "satisfied". Let's also remember that "satisfaction" can mean almost anything; it doesn't necessarily mean "hedonism".

Or do you see that as positive, or define satisfaction-seeking as going beyond routine?

I define satisfaction-seeking as "doing what you want to do, whatever that may be and for whatever reason".

[Reficulris]

This is closest to the "@Johannus Bloem" methodology tutorial I'm still hoping will come some day. Too bad i'm tired, don't take this down, i'm going to read through somewhere the next week if I can get my mind quiet enough to absorb it all.

[Absurd]

I won't say whose dog reminds me of the above.

ESE - natural, simple, artless emotions.
EIE - artificial, crafted, playacting emotions.
LII - natural, basic logic; the logic of natural laws.
LSI - artificial logic, the logic of regulations and decrees created and adopted by people.
SLE - natural strength, which subordinates those who are weaker.
SEE - artificial strength, which allows to exert influence over those who are more powerful.
IEI - natural sense of time, the course of events unfolding into the future.
ILI - artificial sense of time, the course of events oriented at the past.
IEE - natural ideas, naturally possible prospects.
ILE - artificial ideas, alternatives of the impossible, of the hyperreality.
SLI - natural sensory experiences and comfort.
SEI - artificial sensing, created, crafted comfort.
LIE - natural benefit, attained by personal, individual enterprise.
LSE - artificial benefit, derived through organization of labor.
ESI - natural relations, dedicated and loving his own, rejecting of outsiders.
EII - artificial relations, forgives transgressions, treats outsides as his own.

Those are just a re-write on Model B...

[Kill4Me]

My SEI friend when she looks at her dog posts these pics on FB; she adopted this dog when she held him he's obviously not the most gorgeous dog aesthetically but he felt warm in my friends hands and the more she touched him the more the direct image of her dog disappeared and what became loved by her is the image of the dog that reproduced in her mind. The soft and warm hearted Simon, her dog

Dog images are explicit field dynamics. Tell your friend she's ESE.