Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: vertical subtypes

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default vertical subtypes

    How, ultimately, would you distinguish between the contact subtypes of two types having the same ego functions? Examples would be LIE-Ni and ILI-Te, LII-Ne and ILE-Ti, and so forth?

    I realize one tempting answer is to say "Model A distinguishes them by way of the differing information element positioning within the respectie blocks."
    However, I still wonder beyond this, as ultimately the reason there even are 16 types is the model of pairing a rational and irrational in the ego block, so I would consider the rest of the model more of a result of theoretical and empirical weighing based on the goals of socionics theory as to what can be said of the organization of all the other information elements.

    The answer "A LII-Ne is ultimately founded on introverted logic whereas ILE-Ti on extraverted intuition" is also not entirely enough to me, because each of these subtypes represents a strengthening of potential in the direction of the creative position (along with certain other strengthenings as a consequence), which means to me that a blatant restatement of the irrational and rational base statuses is not getting at the heart of the issue conceptually without elaboration as to what these statuses mean, particularly in the creative subtype situation (in other words, I realize they are different types, but the point is to theorize what defines these types).

    Perhaps a clear distinction between base and creative roles in these kinds of subtypes would be illuminating, or some generalized description of inert/contact functioning that you have found helpful, extrapolating from/building on the basics in a site such as wikisocion, or perhaps even better, if you have a higher source of information on this. Or a description of what strengthening of potential does and does not entail.

    I admit I am not confident in my recognition of how dimensionality plays into the model beyond a basic factual knowledge, but that could be a good start, as increased potential towards 3D remains different from 4D.

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can use Reinin, though you'll hardly find people who correspond to all parts of the dichotomies like a hand in a glove.

  3. #3
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,127
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rosewood View Post
    You can use Reinin, though you'll hardly find people who correspond to all parts of the dichotomies like a hand in a glove.
    All you need is 3 to land on a type.

    Personally, i would go Reinin or the Jungian dichotomies EP-IJ. What's inherently different between those is significant. I find that a LII-Ne seems more like an EII than an ILE. The Temperaments are huge in identifying others.

    If i missed your point, let me know.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For me, the motivation here is that vertical subtypes seem to be a somewhat fluid construct, and essentially expose the subtlety of detecting a rational or irrational orientation by virtue of adding the shades of grey.

    Pookie: I suppose it would make sense for LII-Ne to look more like EII. There is a strengthening of ethical potential in the creative subtype of LII. Additionally, LII already has a stronger mental sphere ethical function than does ILE regardless of subtype. One could say the subtype results in increased potential (probably more potential for mental activity is what is meant here, due to simple lack of blockage of readiness in the mental sphere for accessing this), while the type difference creates the foundation of higher dimensionality of LII ethics of relations.

    The thing which makes me nervous about Reinin with type identification is simply that Reinin dichotomies stem from a pretty much purely formulaic derivation, yet are qualitatively interpreted liberally. Meaning, the dichotomies exist, and of this I have no issue, but their attempt to bridge the abstraction of information flow with empirical signs seems secondary to the pure theoretical derivation.

    I would be most comfortable, thus, if direct reference to the Model A structure were made in conjunction with reference to Reinin dichotomies for any justification.

    For instance, "You can expect ILI, even if the Te subtype, to exemplify the following end of the following Reinin dichotomy, and this is getting at the following in the theoretical structure of model A." The weakest aspect of some of the Wikisocion entries appears to be the theoretical basis for the dichotomies.

  5. #5
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Reinin. Specifically, positivism/negativism. I've found the following snippets to be very helpful:
    Figuratively speaking, if Positivists are shown the front side then they will be looking at the front side, while Negativists will try to look at its inverse. If this inverse is not readily apparent, they will start searching for it. Thus Negativists do not seek to present a "negative" or "pessimistic" view of things, but simply the inverse or the alternative one.*
    Positivist types will critically analyze the information that they have received, but the manner in which they relay their criticisms differs from Negativist types. Positivist types are more inclined to voice affirmative statements designed to point out contradictions, or depict the topics in an ironic or absurdist light in order to demonstrate their disbelief or critique something that they've found to be untrue; while criticisms delivered by Negativist types contains a higher proportion of negating, eliminating, or invalidating statements and propositions.*

  6. #6
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,936
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    You don't need 3 Reinin dichotomies to help you find your wrong type, you only need one.

    You should focus chiefly on an analysis of which functions are used most in whichever blocks of Model A.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The suggestion of three dichotomies could be pursued, of course, with forms of cognition, so that one examine the two static types. I would prefer if I understood the foundations of the positivist/negativist better. The discussion of plus and minus signs in wikisocion is not helpful so far. The descriptions are vague, so I must seek the foundations.

  8. #8
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    The suggestion of three dichotomies could be pursued, of course, with forms of cognition, so that one examine the two static types. I would prefer if I understood the foundations of the positivist/negativist better. The discussion of plus and minus signs in wikisocion is not helpful so far. The descriptions are vague, so I must seek the foundations.
    what is your type?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rosewood
    what is your type?
    I will have to reach a conclusion as understanding fully sinks in of the harder points, though certainly some are much more likely than others. The statement you quoted was in reference to posters bringing up ILE and LII differentiation based on Reinin, given I observe one might gain more insight into positivist/negativist if examined in conjunction with other ideas (causal-determinist and holographic-panoramic).

    As afterthought, I agree fully with the idea that Reinin is more of a guideline. I have no doubt that one can isolate the existence of certain dichotomies formally, but the proposed contents of the dichotomies are what sometimes are confusing.

    Maybe as another comment on my post, I can say that with vagueness, I tend to not make a conclusion till things line up exactly, but I am capable of constantly making estimates. I do prefer when this doesn't have to be done and things just line up, however, to the point where I can fully justify everything. That said, vagueness is tolerated fully if there is an idea to be toyed with within, which I can then explore; that said, of course, the point is to explain things and not leave them vague.
    Last edited by chemical; 06-26-2014 at 01:04 AM.

  10. #10
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    317 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    How, ultimately, would you distinguish between the contact subtypes of two types having the same ego functions? Examples would be LIE-Ni and ILI-Te, LII-Ne and ILE-Ti, and so forth?
    You distinguish them by learning the differences between expressions of creative and base functions, and then watching out for those differences. In your example of LII-Ne vs. ILE, even though the intuitive aspect is emphasized for the LII it will always be expressed in creative position and never as base. Base function and creative function differ in several properties, for instance base function is accepting & inert while creative function is producing & contact (link), and to tell the difference you will have to learn how to distinguish these in conversation. This will need some some practice, reading, observation, no easy way around it Personally, I find it easier and quicker to go by dichotomies like @rosewood has already mentioned when typing someone for the first time, and look at subtypes later.

    If you need something qualitative to go by, generally:

    Contact/creative function subtype (this is IEI-Fe, EII-Ne, etc.): needs a lot of interaction ("contact") from their environment otherwise ends up feeling bored, for this reason seeks to regularly "make contact" with what's around them, easily exchanges and integrates information, exchanges happen in smaller bits rarely in lengthy monologues or WOTs, energetic, erratic, fussy, due to over-engaging themselves too much may end up feeling "spent" or tired. Most compatible with other "contact subs"; in dual relations they cool and slow each other down preventing the above exhaustion. Suggestive-seeking is emphasized. Often "ambiverted" or at least their extro/intro-orientation is often not clear-cut and obvious. HA/PoLR becomes an area of special vulnerability and obsession.

    Inert/base function subtype (this is IEI-Ni, EII-Fi, etc.): prefers to observe and accumulate information, often exists in a state of passively "accepting" what is going on around them, "mirrors" or "echoes" their environment sometimes repeating exactly what they see or reiterating exactly what someone else has said without any alteration, poorly integrates information to create "something new" out of it, predisposed towards monologues, extensive and lengthy exchanges of information rather than a lively and brisk back-and-forth discussions. Compatible with other "inert" subs: in dual relations two "inert" subs facilitate each other becoming more interactive, engaged and reciprocating. Suggestive function may feel painfully defunct, almost like a PoLR. Instead HA-seeking is emphasized. Creative function may be weakened to the extent that the person actually seeks it in others instead of "producing" it themselves. Intro/extro-orientation is usually all too clear; with introverts there is a tendency to live too much in their heads; with extroverts this subtype produces a kind of "superficial" extravert who has a lot of trouble seeing what's happening 'behind the curtains' with their attention always sliding along the surface.
    Last edited by silke; 06-26-2014 at 03:12 AM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silke
    Often "ambiverted" or at least their extro/intro-orientation is often not clear-cut and obvious. HA/PoLR becomes an area of special vulnerability and obsession.
    That is a point which I have pondered and has confused me a bit; the strengthening of potential seems to happen in all the directions in theory, right (for instance, IEE-Ne strengthens Ne/Ni, Te/Ti)? I suppose it makes sense to somewhat "ignore" the vital sphere and concentrate on the mental sphere when assessing the most immediately observable effects on their processing, so this would basically be balancing out potentials in the direction of the creative and base.

    The inert/contact information you gave is definitely the kind of thing I am looking to explore. It is not unfamiliar, but still needing in elaboration above what I know from the sources I have seen at least. The perspective of fusing together the producing/accepting aspects with inert/contact is actually helpful to create a fuller picture.

    I could be wrong, but the way you describe inert introverts sounds like my orientation to information, but I am unsure, so here I clarify: I tend to absorb new information not so well, without essentially knowing a lot about the topic already, and the extensive/lengthy exchange also sounds more like my style. Let us put it this way: I spend a lot of time just putting things in their place in a way that makes sense to me, and if something is handed to me suddenly I am usually not able to say more than some very general statement about it, reducing it to a specific case of something I have already analyzed. Sometimes I can function with quick exchanges, but I think this trait generally precludes it, and I am more likely to spend ample time sorting something out, and then spew a whole bunch out when I want feedback.

  12. #12
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,127
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    For me, the motivation here is that vertical subtypes seem to be a somewhat fluid construct, and essentially expose the subtlety of detecting a rational or irrational orientation by virtue of adding the shades of grey.

    Pookie: I suppose it would make sense for LII-Ne to look more like EII. There is a strengthening of ethical potential in the creative subtype of LII. Additionally, LII already has a stronger mental sphere ethical function than does ILE regardless of subtype. One could say the subtype results in increased potential (probably more potential for mental activity is what is meant here, due to simple lack of blockage of readiness in the mental sphere for accessing this), while the type difference creates the foundation of higher dimensionality of LII ethics of relations.

    The thing which makes me nervous about Reinin with type identification is simply that Reinin dichotomies stem from a pretty much purely formulaic derivation, yet are qualitatively interpreted liberally. Meaning, the dichotomies exist, and of this I have no issue, but their attempt to bridge the abstraction of information flow with empirical signs seems secondary to the pure theoretical derivation.

    I would be most comfortable, thus, if direct reference to the Model A structure were made in conjunction with reference to Reinin dichotomies for any justification.

    For instance, "You can expect ILI, even if the Te subtype, to exemplify the following end of the following Reinin dichotomy, and this is getting at the following in the theoretical structure of model A." The weakest aspect of some of the Wikisocion entries appears to be the theoretical basis for the dichotomies.
    I don't think a search for empirical evidence is going to be fruitful here. How can one derive facts from something that is merely theoretical. One can observe connections or supporting information, but it's all subjective. I feel its impossible to find objectivity in a purely subjective theory.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  13. #13
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,127
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    The suggestion of three dichotomies could be pursued, of course, with forms of cognition, so that one examine the two static types. I would prefer if I understood the foundations of the positivist/negativist better. The discussion of plus and minus signs in wikisocion is not helpful so far. The descriptions are vague, so I must seek the foundations.
    Reading the foundations of plus/minus was less helpful than reading a random post from a user, in my opinion. Its a topic that took me 3-4 years to even grasp a solid foundation for. I would save that for later.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie
    I don't think a search for empirical evidence is going to be fruitful here. How can one derive facts from something that is merely theoretical. One can observe connections or supporting information, but it's all subjective. I feel its impossible to find objectivity in a purely subjective theory.
    That is my inclination of belief as well, which is why extracting empirical signals that supposedly correspond to the theoretical dichotomies arising from a theoretical model is challenging.
    Which is why my inclination is to note my best-fit dichotomies down but try to give more direct arguments and counter-arguments to myself about the IE positions.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie
    Reading the foundations of plus/minus was less helpful than reading a random post from a user, in my opinion. Its a topic that took me 3-4 years to even grasp a solid foundation for. I would save that for later.
    Later after what though? I would have to learn everything sooner or later, and I'm already familiar with most/all of the basic ideas, though I do seek to deepen knowledge.

  16. #16
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,127
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Later after what though? I would have to learn everything sooner or later, and I'm already familiar with most/all of the basic ideas, though I do seek to deepen knowledge.
    When it comes to advice i rely on what worked for me, and what worked for me was reading through past threads and sometimes you find something that puts information into perspective. But i can retain information for a long time and organize it later, so thats why i prefer that method.

    In a vague brief description, plus signs focus towards maximizing the positive, and minus signs focus towards minimizing the negative.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am not sure if this is the idea, but holographic-panoramic's negativism seems to manifest by way of considering for each angle the other angle "to establish something's level or nature of truth, I immediately consider minimization of its opposite", and superimposing various such, whereas causal-determinist's causality builds systematically on what is there in a causal way ("what does whatever is there lead to" as opposed to "what element of the opposing end is not there").

    So for ILE/LII, the fact that Ti has a minus sign makes all the difference, namely in whether it is the base function or not.

    You are Beta, Pookie, so any thoughts on how you understand the +Ti of your quadra, as opposed to -Ti of say the alpha?

    I wonder if this is the beta view of Ti as creating wanted structure, versus the alpha situation, where free play of ideas in a coherently explanatory way is emphasized. So +Ne and -Ti meaning the Ti is approached not from the positive standpoint of creating structure, but rather the -Ti might be more willing to build new axioms and logical conceptualization around the greater free play of potential typical of the Ne leaning (minimizing constraints in the axioms to reflect various shades, tending towards implausibility in the worst case).
    This is my interpretation of this page http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...o-quot-Gulenko
    Last edited by chemical; 06-26-2014 at 02:26 AM.

  18. #18
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,127
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry, can't help you out really with +/- outside the ego functions. Havent put enough thought into it.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You could comment on Ni-Fe though, that would still provide fodder, if you are up for it.

  20. #20
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,127
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My -Ni manifests in the forethought of consequence. I focus on how i might impact the environment in a way that ends up negatively in the long run. There's a mental examination of concepts and an evaluation of how my notions are comprised. I spot contradiction in my behavior by first nature, though sometimes i find it excusable because the positive outweighs the negative. But alot of that mental play with concepts is about foreseeing how i am effecting my life. I "minimize" that which is harmful in order to bring happiness.

    My +Fe is much more shallow. Possiblly due to +, 3D, and extroverted. When im comfortable around people i can evoke positive emotions pretty well. I have tactics that bring out smiles, without dealing with the negative. I just move people away from the bad place momentarily. If expression of negative emotions manifests, i can't really help. I'll listen and shit, but in my head i just don't vibe that way. It doesnt make sense to dwell on it; from my perspective we should all always be happy( or strive to) because we have toilets and tap water. We're the 1%.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I did a brief questionnaire writeup in case any of you is interested. I realize it may not work out great given my posting here has been limited, but leads or suggestions for direction evident in it would be fine enough. I am fine discussing preferences in more detail if something is generic.

    I approach the theory all with a healthy skepticism, so I am not a "fastest track to the answer" sort, rather I work from possible answers based on possible ways of seeing the theory.

  22. #22
    suedehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silke View Post
    You distinguish them by learning the differences between expressions of creative and base functions, and then watching out for those differences. In your example of LII-Ne vs. ILE, even though the intuitive aspect is emphasized for the LII it will always be expressed in creative position and never as base. Base function and creative function differ in several properties, for instance base function is accepting & inert while creative function is producing & contact (link), and to tell the difference you will have to learn how to distinguish these in conversation. This will need some some practice, reading, observation, no easy way around it Personally, I find it easier and quicker to go by dichotomies like @rosewood has already mentioned when typing someone for the first time, and look at subtypes later.

    If you need something qualitative to go by, generally:

    Contact/creative function subtype (this is IEI-Fe, EII-Ne, etc.): needs a lot of interaction ("contact") from their environment otherwise ends up feeling bored, for this reason seeks to regularly "make contact" with what's around them, easily exchanges and integrates information, exchanges happen in smaller bits rarely in lengthy monologues or WOTs, energetic, erratic, fussy, due to over-engaging themselves too much may end up feeling "spent" or tired. Most compatible with other "contact subs"; in dual relations they cool and slow each other down preventing the above exhaustion. Suggestive-seeking is emphasized. Often "ambiverted" or at least their extro/intro-orientation is often not clear-cut and obvious. HA/PoLR becomes an area of special vulnerability and obsession.

    Inert/base function subtype (this is IEI-Ni, EII-Fi, etc.): prefers to observe and accumulate information, often exists in a state of passively "accepting" what is going on around them, "mirrors" or "echoes" their environment sometimes repeating exactly what they see or reiterating exactly what someone else has said without any alteration, poorly integrates information to create "something new" out of it, predisposed towards monologues, extensive and lengthy exchanges of information rather than a lively and brisk back-and-forth discussions. Compatible with other "inert" subs: in dual relations two "inert" subs facilitate each other becoming more interactive, engaged and reciprocating. Suggestive function may feel painfully defunct, almost like a PoLR. Instead HA-seeking is emphasized. Creative function may be weakened to the extent that the person actually seeks it in others instead of "producing" it themselves. Intro/extro-orientation is usually all too clear; with introverts there is a tendency to live too much in their heads; with extroverts this subtype produces a kind of "superficial" extravert who has a lot of trouble seeing what's happening 'behind the curtains' with their attention always sliding along the surface.
    It makes sense to me, but I'm not sure how I fit into it. I relate to Inert-subtype a bit in terms of demeanor (less interactive), but then I don't consider my Si to be all that lacking, and if you bring clubs into the picture, I relate to SF club moreso than NT.

  23. #23
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suedehead View Post
    It makes sense to me, but I'm not sure how I fit into it. I relate to Inert-subtype a bit in terms of demeanor (less interactive), but then I don't consider my Si to be all that lacking, and if you bring clubs into the picture, I relate to SF club moreso than NT.
    You are obviously Inert subtype.

  24. #24
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Chemical, I warn you that you might never put together all the predications circulated in the Socionics community consistently. First stay on the Model A alone, then try the rest and see what fits and what doesn't. Other than giving them new tries from time to time, I for one rejected the following for good reasons:
    - the Reinin dichotomies that do not result from the Information Aspects in the Psyche model: Carefree/Farsighted, Obstinate/Compliant, Tactical/Strategic, Constructivist/Emotivist, Positivist/Negativist, Process/Result and Asking/Declaring.
    - DHCN
    - subtypes
    - +/- (in the sense of different forms of the same IE, otherwise - emergent - I think so)

    Other recommendations:
    - Understand the full schema of the Model A: the composition of the Information Elements out of the three fundamental Information Aspects dichotomies: Bodies/Fields, Dynamic/Static, External/Internal. (first clarify with yourself whether and why they are or may be fundamental)
    - Understand the Psyche model arrangement rules - blocking, blocks, rings - and functions (like the clear differences between Base and Creative).
    - Think of how all other IEs are just different but inseparable facets of any chosen IE in the Psyche (e.g. How Ti-Base itself inherently means Fi-Role, Fe-Suggestive and Te-Ignoring).
    - Read the type descriptions and try to figure out how different IEs and dichotomies manifest in those personalities. Never get far from the shore, compare the types that have things in common - also in opposition - with each other (for example SEI with SLI to avoid a common mistake to associate Si with pleasure).
    - It is helpful to read Aushra, how Socionics came about, the differences between this and Jung and MBTI. Most importantly their fundamental differences: i.e. MBTI is a behavioral inventory; Jung's model is more psychoanalytical.
    - Learn what functions really are, that they determine cognition, not behavior (some behaviors may be based on opposite IEs in certain circumstances).

    The lists are not guaranteed exhaustive. Between ILE and LII, I think you are the latter (chemical).
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable
    Think of how all other IEs are just different but inseparable facets of any chosen IE in the Psyche
    This is probably my favorite one, in terms of how much I have found it essential to comprehending the model. It helped to take a step back and remember the terms superego/ego come from Freudian theory, and in a sense I view the relation as embodying the Jungian idea of the complementary rational functions and irrational functions as representing two sides of the coin, thus the idea is that the demands one feels as to one's rational-irrational pairing in the ego block has a natural backside that makes demands which one is (at times painfully) conscious of.

    So in this sense, the rational ego leading with Ti experiences the demands of Fi as natural, and thus complies with it up to the point where it isn't too painful. When Se is blocked with Fi, the demands of the superego seem completely unreasonable, because they are out of the dominant sphere. Your type ILE would see this analogously with Se role.

    The vital sphere is harder to understand as a direct consequence of the ego block. This seems like some combination of Freud's theory of the id and Jung's theory of the unconscious personality taking on typological characteristics of a natural compensation to the ego's orientation. Essentially, the suggestive function is like the "inferior personality," synonymous with the unlived side of the person seeking to be enlivened, but simultaneously linked to the "barbarism" and instinctuality typical of Jung's unconscious function-types which hardly are incompatible with the idea of id influences on ego-consciousness.

    I guess the way it works could be that much as base Ti leads to ignoring Te, the demands of the superego enforce a certain adherence to the other side of the rational code through Fi, which leads to ignoring a certain aspect of the (super) id, that is Fe. The superego is Fi because the demands made on the mental sphere in the ego must be of the same static/dynamic orientation as the ego itself. All this results in especially preferring the energizing Fe to be sought out.

    I realize some places I am using the terms "id" and "superid" interchangeably in a loose way just for correlation purposes to the Freudian stuff.

    Chemical, I warn you that you might never put together all the predications circulated in the Socionics community consistently. First stay on the Model A alone, then try the rest and see what fits and what doesn't.
    That makes sense; I have come to suspect it may be impossible as well.

    Between ILE and LII, I think you are the latter (chemical).
    Compare and contrast always helps. Why do you say so?

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Probably my absolute favorite idea in the Model A when compared to the Jungian theory is that it expands largely in categorizing the different senses in which functions can be inferior and superior. For instance, the lowest-dimensional IE 4 and 5, along with how the "opposite function" to the base has two separate roles depending on orientation ("i" vs "e").

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK given the discussion that transpired recently, I can say the best way for this thread to reach its conclusion is to understand how the rational and irrational elements respectively fulfill the lead and creative roles differently.

    If I had to describe what I just wrote above, it is basically describing the ego/id/superid/superego relations based on rationality and irrationality, but not doing a whole lot to delineate how these fulfill specific roles.

    What is a rational base, and what is a rational creative? What is an irrational base, and what is an irrational creative?

    This is one of the hardest questions for me, because the truth is irrational and rational elements seldom work as standalones. In fact, if one looks at the original 8 Jungian types, there were EIGHT, not 16, classified, and that suggests to me that Jung was trying to view when there is some relative autonomy the dominant element. Jung could easily have based his theory on 16 types, but only mentioned the constantly present secondary function as an afterthought to distinguish the individual features of types, that is, he would have viewed Ti-S and Ti-N as subtypes rather than types, with the type of consciousness being squarely the dominant function.

    One can try to use the accepting/producing dichotomy here, as has been suggested, or look to how someone makes contact with the environment. I am not sure how this plays out with respect to irrationality/rationality though - thoughts welcome.

    Perhaps in an irrational intuitive base, say logical type for now, a stream of mental associations occupies them, and is carried out to utmost intensity but their preferred way of making contact could be something like presenting a specimen of structural or algorithmic logic to the environment, and/or finding instances of such to feed back into their irrational activity.

    There is, however, another idea that tends to mark the place of the secondary IE, if we for a moment take a look at the Jungian version of things. This comes from the idea that your type is really given by the first function, and the second offers a sphere for its activity. This needs explanation, though. The first function being one's type basically points to the tension between it and its other side (e.g. sensation/intuition): It's one thing perceiving ideational associations between streams of sensory content and quite another to deliberately dull both the interpretive and sensory aspects of processing to seek the highest release from sensation via intuition, whereby logic or ethics would only ensure one's intuitive activity isn't essentially directionless.
    The crux of this idea is understanding the logic/ethics and sensation/intuition oppositions. I confess I better understand the latter than the former.

    Now, I wonder how does accepting/producing relate to this idea? Probably this line captures it best:

    The second element he uses as a tool to achieve goals set by the first one, and treats this element accordingly.
    The accepting element serves to confirm/maintain the established mode of consciousness whereas the producing is its mode of expression.

    In socionics, the type being given by the first IE with the second merely offering it the sphere of activity idea is a bit more complicated than in the Jungian theory, because the ego-leading function is positioned where it is relative to 3 other blocks, not merely an unconscious.

    In particular, I don't see it as being founded on dichotomies T/F (or logic/ethics) and S/N so much as inter-relations which aren't dichotomous exactly. The feeling personality is not arguing with the thinking personality so much as it is making additional demands which do not constitute the natural sphere of consciousness.
    As far as conscious activity, logic and ethics conflict in so much as they cannot be simultaneously employed, at least in the same orientation (e.g. Ti+Fi).
    In some ways, this is actually preferable, because after all, logic and ethics belong to separate domains of rationality, and so why should they exactly conflict rather than merely fail to mix?

    BUT: the issue is that the vertical subtypes are a direct appeal to the Jungian dichotomous presentation of logic/ethics and the like.

    Maybe a question, then, is how does "level of energy potential" (in so much as strengthening of potential relates to vertical subtypes) get reflected in the Model A view of things? Meaning, what even is the level of such potential by default: this isn't dimensionality clearly, but something else.

    Essentially we are mixing two theories here: one of conscious/unconscious opposition and one which is based on ego/superego/vital.
    Energy potential reeks of Jung's concept of libido/readiness, namely one mode of consciousness contradicting readiness for the other to take over. This is a big different of an opposition compared to the ego/superego which is more like the information you naturally work with vs the demands/requirements/standards which still affect your mental world.

    At most increased energy potential for the superid functions (e.g. Si in ILE-Ti) would mean one probably is more able to supply it/take note of it, i.e. there is more readiness to interact with it rather than it being a demand one does not take much note of.
    Last edited by chemical; 07-11-2014 at 09:03 AM.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's an example of the difficulties:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lytov
    Jung did not distinguish clearly rational types from irrational. For him, Thinking Extraverted type with secondary Intuition (ENT rational) was “almost the same” as Intuitive Extraverted with secondary Thinking (ENT irrational).
    I agree with the first sentence heartily. The second, I am not sure how true it is. Jung's portrayal of the irrational types went as far as describing them as inaccessible to reason, misunderstood and viewed as fruitless from the rationalistic standpoint. It is possible in later years he stopped this, and certainly some of his cited associates' writings give the impression of failing to make much distinction as above.

    His views of auxiliary functions is commonly stated in support of the idea that the 8 types he described were ones with poorly developed secondary functions, or pathologically dependent on one function. Yet this is folly, it seems. His introverted intuitive type had both moralistic and aesthetic versions, the former corresponding to differentiated judgment, so he clearly acknowledged these variants even before making a remark as to the exaggeratedness of his portraits.
    His auxiliary types were only to distinguish the individual features of the common characters, whence when he described irrational types he actually meant this is how they look, although the influence of the secondary functions could modify things.

    Lytov (from the socionics side of things) likes to characterize the rationals as rigid, following a more structured program, and such. I suppose this is fine (his secondary Ti vs base Ti distinction references conceptual vs methodological). It's just not to me the only way you can draw a rational/irrational distinction.

    Perhaps part of the source of this thread is that the very conception of this dichotomy seems unclear, or at best, to have multiple differing answers. If it itself isn't clear, then it's harder and harder to make all these finer distinctions, such as how does strengthening the energy potential of an information element interact with the positioning of elements in model A, and what effects does this have on empirical identifiability.

  29. #29
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    I agree with the first sentence heartily. The second, I am not sure how true it is. Jung's portrayal of the irrational types went as far as describing them as inaccessible to reason, misunderstood and viewed as fruitless from the rationalistic standpoint. It is possible in later years he stopped this, and certainly some of his cited associates' writings give the impression of failing to make much distinction as above.
    I don't read deeply into Lytov's works, I find it a bit derivative and bad and when he start criticizing Reinin I kind of stop reading entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    10. Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types

    I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. In this respect both the latter types have a considerable superiority over the two judging types. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not. One might reverse it and say that we apply the term law-determined to the occurrence appearing so to our reason, and where its regularity escapes us we call it accidental. The postulate of a universal lawfulness remains a postulate of reason only; in no sense is it a postulate of our functions of perception. Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational. Hence my term 'irrational' corresponds with the nature of the perception-types. But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite incorrect to regard these types as unreasonable. They are merely in a high degree empirical; they are grounded exclusively upon experience, so exclusively, in fact, that as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience. But the functions of judgment are none the less present, although they eke out a largely unconscious existence. But, since the unconscious, in spite of its separation from the conscious subject, is always reappearing on the scene, the actual life of the irrational types exhibits striking judgments and acts of choice, which take the form of apparent sophistries, cold-hearted criticisms, and an apparently purposeful [p. 469] selection of persons and situations. These traits have a rather infantile, or even primitive, stamp; at times they are astonishingly naive, but at times also inconsiderate, crude, or outrageous. To the rationally orientated mind, the real character of such people might well appear rationalistic and purposeful in the bad sense. But this judgment would be valid only for their unconscious, and, therefore, quite incorrect for their conscious psychology, which is entirely orientated by perception, and because of its irrational nature is quite unintelligible to the rational judgment. Finally, it may even appear to a rationally orientated mind that such an assemblage of accidentals, hardly deserves the name 'psychology.' The irrational type balances this contemptuous judgment with an equally poor impression of the rational; for he sees him as something only half alive, whose only aim in life consists in fastening the fetters of reason upon everything living, and wringing his own neck with criticisms. Naturally, these are gross extremes; but they occur.

    From the standpoint of the rational type, the irrational might easily be represented as a rational of inferior quality; namely, when he is apprehended in the light of what happens to him. For what happens to him is not the accidental-in that he is master-but, in its stead, he is overtaken by rational judgment and rational aims. This fact is hardly comprehensible to the rational mind, but its unthinkableness merely equals the astonishment of the irrational, when he discovers someone who can set the ideas of reason above the living and actual event. Such a thing seems scarcely credible to him. It is, as a rule, quite hopeless to look to him for any recognition of principles in this direction, since a rational understanding is just as unknown and, in fact, tiresome to him as the idea of making a contract, without mutual discussion and obligations, appears unthinkable to the rational type. [p. 470]

    This point brings me to the problem of the psychic relation between the representatives of the different types. Following the terminology of the French school of hypnotists, the psychic relation among the more modern psychiatrists is termed I 'rapport'. Rapport chiefly consists in a feeling of actual accord, in spite of recognised differences. In fact, the recognition of existing differences, in so far as they are common to both, is already a rapport, a feeling of accord. If we make this feeling conscious to a rather high degree in an actual case, we discover that it has not merely the quality of a feeling that cannot be analysed further, but it also has the nature of an insight or cognitional content, representing the point of agreement in a conceptual form. This rational presentation is exclusively valid for the rational types; it by no means applies to the irrational, whose rapport is based not at all upon judgment but upon the parallelism of actual living events. His feeling of accord is the common perception of a sensation or intuition. The rational would say that rapport with the irrational depends purely upon chance. If, by some accident, the objective situations are exactly in tune, something like a human relationship takes place, but nobody can tell what will be either its validity or its duration. To the rational type it is often a very bitter thought that the relationship will last only just so long as external circumstances accidentally produce a mutual interest. This does not occur to him as being especially human, whereas it is precisely in this situation that the irrational sees a humanity of quite singular beauty. Accordingly each regards the other as a man destitute of relationships, upon whom no reliance can be placed, and with whom one can never get on decent terms. Such a result, however, is reached only when one consciously tries to make some estimate of the nature of one's relationships with one's fellow-men. Although a psychological conscientiousness of [p. 471] this kind is by no means usual, yet it frequently happens that, notwithstanding an absolute difference of standpoint, a kind of rapport does take place, and in the following way. The one assumes with unspoken projection that the other is, in all essential points, of the same opinion as himself, while the other divines or senses an objective community of interest, of which, however, the former has no conscious inkling and whose existence he would at once dispute, just as it would never occur to the latter that his relationship must rest upon a common point-of-view. A rapport of this kind is by far the most frequent; it rests upon projection, which is the source of many subsequent misunderstandings.

    Psychic relationship, in the extraverted attitude, is always regulated by objective factors and outer determinants. What a man is within has never any decisive significance. For our present-day culture the extraverted attitude is the governing principle in the problem of human relationship; naturally, the introverted principle occurs, but it is still the exception, and has to appeal to the tolerance of the age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    10. Recapitulation of Introverted Irrational Types

    The two types just depicted are almost inaccessible to external judgment. Because they are introverted and have in consequence a somewhat meagre capacity or willingness for expression, they offer but a frail handle for a telling criticism. Since their main activity is directed within, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, or uncertainty, and an apparently groundless perplexity. When anything does come to the surface, it usually consists in indirect manifestations of inferior and relatively unconscious functions. Manifestations of such a nature naturally excite a certain environmental prejudice against these types. Accordingly they are mostly underestimated, or at least misunderstood. To the same degree as they fail to understand themselves -- because they very largely lack judgment -- they are also powerless to understand why they are so constantly undervalued by public opinion. They cannot see that their outward-going expression is, as a matter of fact, also of an inferior character. Their vision is enchanted by the abundance of subjective events. What happens there is so captivating, and of such inexhaustible attraction, that they do not appreciate the fact that their habitual communications to their circle express very, little of that real experience in which they themselves are, as it were, caught up. The fragmentary and, as a rule, quite episodic character of their communications make too great a demand upon the understanding and good will of their circle; furthermore, their mode of expression lacks that flowing warmth to the object which alone can have convincing force. On the contrary, these types show very often a brusque, repelling demeanour towards the outer world, although of this they are quite unaware, and have not the least intention of showing it. We shall form a [p. 512] fairer judgment of such men and grant them a greater indulgence, when we begin to realize how hard it is to translate into intelligible language what is perceived within. Yet this indulgence must not be so liberal as to exempt them altogether from the necessity of such expression. This could be only detrimental for such types. Fate itself prepares for them, perhaps even more than for other men, overwhelming external difficulties, which have a very sobering effect upon the intoxication of the inner vision. But frequently only an intense personal need can wring from them a human expression.

    From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men. But, viewed from a higher standpoint, such men are living evidence of the fact that this rich and varied world with its overflowing and intoxicating life is not purely external, but also exists within. These types are admittedly one sided demonstrations of Nature, but they are an educational experience for the man who refuses to be blinded by the intellectual mode of the day. In their own way, men with such an attitude are educators and promoters of culture. Their life teaches more than their words. From their lives, and not the least from what is just their greatest fault, viz. their incommunicability, we may understand one of the greatest errors of our civilization, that is, the superstitious belief in statement and presentation, the immoderate overprizing of instruction by means of word and method. A child certainly allows himself to be impressed by the grand talk of its parents. But is it really imagined that the child is thereby educated? Actually it is the parents' lives that educate the child -- what they add thereto by word and gesture at best serves only to confuse him. The same holds good for the teacher. But we have such a belief in method that, if only the method be good, the practice of it seems to hallow the teacher. An inferior [p. 513] man is never. a good teacher. But he can conceal his injurious inferiority, which secretly poisons the pupil, behind an excellent method or, an equally brilliant intellectual capacity. Naturally the pupil of riper years desires nothing better than the knowledge of useful methods, because he is already defeated by the general attitude, which believes in the victorious method. He has already learnt that the emptiest head, correctly echoing a method, is the best pupil. His whole environment not only urges but exemplifies the doctrine that all success and happiness are external, and that only the right method is needed to attain the haven of one's desires. Or is the life of his religious instructor likely to demonstrate that happiness which radiates from the treasure of the inner vision? The irrational introverted types are certainly no instructors of a more complete humanity. They lack reason and the ethics of reason, but their lives teach the other possibility, in which our civilization is so deplorably wanting.
    I think Jung was very clear(or as clear as I've seen) in his differentiation of rational vs irrational and he does it twice once for E and once for I. Socionics has not really redefined these beyond new associations. Object/field/schizotyme/cyclotyme and such additions. These are however not direct replacement for Jung's definitions. His work is dense and you can even see in his work the beginnings of the descriptions for intertype relations(rapport) and Model A such as the unconscious rationality of a extroverted irrational. In fact I think Lytov totally misunderstood Jung, it could be a language or translation difference but I think it's very clear exactly what Jung was saying about rationality/irrationality.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Point - I'd say the reason it is clearer when reading Jung than when you go out and reflect on the subject subsequently is that Jung and his colleagues were well aware that the development of an irrational and rational function in consciousness can seem to be so close that one has a great difficulty telling one apart from the other in terms of position, yet this issue is sort of barely mentioned or not mentioned in sufficient explanatory capacity as far as I know in Psychological Types, and there's a reason why this is so, which, let me try to explain - suffice it to say I think Jung was painting portraits of the more exaggerated cases so as to make his points "that" there exists something such as a type given by irrationality and so forth.

    If you look at his irrational types, he most always ensured that he paid most attention to the cases where they were really irrational. His portrait of the introverted intuitive type makes various statements about an individual generally lacking in moral judgment, despite his being willing to acknowledge the "morally-oriented intuitive" (i.e. one with at least some differentiation of judgment) and the "philosophical intuition."

    The trouble is really not in the concepts of irrational and rational not being clear - the irrational is essentially that factor which doesn't get covered by the rational, and hence demands an absolute faithfulness to perception to know the nature of things, by not attempting to single out portions of the perception for rational evaluation and thus obtaining an incomplete picture of them. The trouble is in providing what I'd call sufficient (for my own clarity) theory of how these become psychologically in opposition, given that the perception and judgment can act in a complementary way if one is in the leading position.

    When asked in an interview to explain the two intuitive dominant types, Jung gives the example of a woman with a "snake in her abdomen," basically a perception she has which she finds quite as real as a sensory perception, and with extraordinary intuitive powers, clearly to the extent that she probably had to repress judgment quite a bit to get there, despite judgment being a potential auxiliary to perception.

    While very clear what this means about a truly irrational type, this still does very little to explain the problem of the apparently closer to middle-road mentioned at the start of the post, which I think grows more and more common as you look at normal individuals who still have clear preferences (hence important to explain). One of his colleagues discusses the inferior function as one of only ways of still knowing in theory that there exists a differentiated type in the sense of a relative predominance of one function.

    Note that even people who worked as closely with psychological types as one can imagine from a Jungian standpoint seem not to agree on whether Jung was a rational or irrational type, which is to me another potential clue.
    Last edited by chemical; 08-26-2014 at 07:25 PM.

  31. #31
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Point - I'd say the reason it is clearer when reading Jung than when you go out and reflect on the subject subsequently is that Jung and his colleagues were well aware that the development of an irrational and rational function in consciousness can seem to be so close that one has a great difficulty telling one apart from the other in terms of position, yet this issue is sort of barely mentioned or not mentioned in sufficient explanatory capacity as far as I know in Psychological Types, and there's a reason why this is so, which, let me try to explain - suffice it to say I think Jung was painting portraits of the more exaggerated cases so as to make his points "that" there exists something such as a type given by irrationality and so forth.

    If you look at his irrational types, he most always ensured that he paid most attention to the cases where they were really irrational. His portrait of the introverted intuitive type makes various statements about an individual generally lacking in moral judgment, despite his being willing to acknowledge the "morally-oriented intuitive" (i.e. one with at least some differentiation of judgment) and the "philosophical intuition."

    The trouble is really not in the concepts of irrational and rational not being clear - the irrational is essentially that factor which doesn't get covered by the rational, and hence demands an absolute faithfulness to perception to know the nature of things, by not attempting to single out portions of the perception for rational evaluation and thus obtaining an incomplete picture of them. The trouble is in providing what I'd call sufficient (for my own clarity) theory of how these become psychologically in opposition, given that the perception and judgment can act in a complementary way if one is in the leading position.

    When asked in an interview to explain the two intuitive dominant types, Jung gives the example of a woman with a "snake in her abdomen," basically a perception she has which she finds quite as real as a sensory perception, and with extraordinary intuitive powers, clearly to the extent that she probably had to repress judgment quite a bit to get there, despite judgment being a potential auxiliary to perception.

    While very clear what this means about a truly irrational type, this still does very little to explain the problem of the apparently closer to middle-road mentioned at the start of the post, which I think grows more and more common as you look at normal individuals who still have clear preferences (hence important to explain). One of his colleagues discusses the inferior function as one of only ways of still knowing in theory that there exists a differentiated type in the sense of a relative predominance of one function.

    Note that even people who worked as closely with psychological types as one can imagine from a Jungian standpoint seem not to agree on whether Jung was a rational or irrational type, which is to me another potential clue.
    Jung's definitions are very clearly delineated, but the tools of analysis(human observation and experience) are fallible. There is a gap of measurement and instrumentation that exists which will be a challenge to overcome. Until such a tool and methodology is developed all there can be is expertise and debate over what is actually correct.

    IMO sub-typing is tricky and need to be done only when the main type is firmly established. A sub-type is only a accent on a type, if there is any debate concerning the main type, one should avoid identifying a sub-type. Function dichotomies will inform you a lot about mirrors and when you really understand the cognition of mirrors you will recognize very quickly that you cannot make this mistake once you understand the cognition of an individual. The mirrors are quite different.

    It's my opinion that typing for efficiency is perhaps necessary for practical predictions, but you cannot truly understand/know a individuals type without fully grasping that individuals cognition in a mechanical manner.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, observation/experience is definitely a weak link, and I think it's still unclear to me (to the extent I made a separate thread on it actually) what exactly you distinguish the rational and irrational types based on their empirical psychology.

    The concepts are extremely clear to me as well, that is, the stuff deriving from the definitions. I can see hypothetically how these could turn into a factor of tension in practice, yet I think this is where there could be more work.

    In particular, the whole rationals are rigid and irrationals are fluid thing that pervades so many descriptions doesn't cut it for me! I'd like a much more in depth observation of how the concept of rationality manifests. I liked Jung's descriptions, just for aforementioned reasons feel there's a lot more work to do.

Posting Permissions

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