INTp vs INTj Thinking Styles in Chess

[Soupman]

ILI and LII what is your thought process like when you play chess?

Hypothetically I've been speculating that LIIs start by formulating an overall strategy, a list of techniques they believe should be employed to challenge the opposition. These become the road map to follow as the game progresses; the road map assures a sense of control. Once the road map is foiled then, its over for them mentally since all confidence is lost.

Whereas hypothetically, ILIs start the match envisioning possibilities as they analyse the most probable routes the opponent may take. Taking the opponent's ''routes'' into account they adapt their game gradually subverting them to their vision. When they are unable to work out the routes that the opponent may take, their mind goes blank as they find themselves in the wilderness; the game is over for them there.



heavynurse @matrix

[Pookie]

Tactics v. Strategy at its most exemplary.

[Soupman]

Tactics v. Strategy at its most exemplary.

How is the explanation? I edited it hopefuly it makes sense

[Oaky]

I imagine the LII uses tactics over strategy for their playing style. It is the ILI that enjoys the use of understood strategies and how they unfold in the match. The stronger tactical player will always manage to find the narrow escapes. Strategies are often more important in the beginning whereas tactics are more important mid-game to end-game plays.

[Aylen]

I am neither LII or ILI but sometimes I can think like them, I think.

I used to play chess a lot with my ILI step-dad. I didn't want to because he seemed to take it way to serious and it was never much fun. He made me play though. Said it would teach me something... He took soooo long and I would be impatient because I kinda already knew how I would move in response to several moves I imagined he would make. I wrote something about this in another thread. I am not sure if I am using strategy or tactics to be honest. Maybe a mixture of both. I don't think I ever start a game with a clear strategy though. I am not very good at chess but I have won against people I never thought I could win against.

This is the post I made in another thread. It wasn't about chess but it was what that interaction made me feel like.

This feels, almost like a game of chess. So far I have anticipated every possible move of my "opponent" and was ready for it. Like all probabilities become clear simultaneously and all counter moves are planned. I usually explore counter moves instead of opening moves but now I realize what my opening move was that started this whole thing...

I am thinking I lean toward tactics. I often try to distract my opponent from making a move I think they are going to make. It is very subtle but it works about half the time.

[Soupman]

I imagine the LII uses tactics over strategy for their playing style. It is the ILI that enjoys the use of understood strategies and how they unfold in the match. The stronger tactical player will always manage to find the narrow escapes. Strategies are often more important in the beginning whereas tactics are more important mid-game to end-game plays.

The trouble here maybe semantics with regards to our exact interpretation of strategy and tactics.

Regardless the argument is logically consistent, LII are not flexible as rationals, they follow structures. ILI are driven by the situation as opposed to ideal rules

[Oaky]

The trouble here maybe semantics with regards to our exact interpretation of strategy and tactics.

Regardless the argument is logically consistent, LII are not flexible as rationals, they follow structures. ILI are driven by the situation as opposed to ideal rules

Where does flexibility come into play? The reasoning isn't sound at all. Ti user logic grasps a system knowing the insides and outs and updates it based on the every stage in a process. The Ti chess player most certainly has an advantage tactics-wise.
You've mentioned the semantics of the chess names though there are already defined methods of play in chess knowledge.

Here are sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tactic
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/gene...ference-indeed

Essentially, chess strategy is a longer term planning of a chess game and this is more suited to the NiTe user over the TiNe user. They envision a game and how it will play out and use a particular strategy over time. Isn't this more defining of Ni anyway? Inclination towards time-centric ideals.

[Olduvai]

semantics

I think this is what Soupman is referring to when he's talking about strategies and tactics:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t..._and_strategic

[Oaky]

I think this is what Soupman is referring to when he's talking about strategies and tactics:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t..._and_strategic

The reinin dichotomy. I see.
I apologise for the misunderstanding if that was what was meant. I'm relying on chapter 10 of Jung's psychological types to adhere the functions to the chess playing method. There will not only be translation issues, but definition alterations too.

[Aylen]

I think this is what Soupman is referring to when he's talking about strategies and tactics:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t..._and_strategic

Thank you.

F*ck if I know what this thread is actually leading to but this was very helpful! I guess am I tactical when I play (any game). I am competitive but I don't know enough about chess to form a clear strategy. So in a way I have no goal. I feel more accomplished when I outmaneuver my opponent in a game, using my methods, than just winning it (hollow victory). I learned from an ILI so...he had his reasons for teaching me and I think I understand why now.

I am getting back to basics...Chesskids

I doubt I will ever play a game of chess again since I find it kinda boring but it is a good reflection of how I play this game called life. All thanks to him.

I am an IEI raised by an ILI and LSI.

Edit: This may be leading me to post in this thread.

[Pookie]

Tactics - How to get things done / Characterized by flexibility & in the moment decision making
Strategy - What needs to get done / Characterized by foresight & predetermined goals.

I'm pretty sure tactical and strategical correspond almost exactly with the Reinin definitions.

[Soupman]

Where does flexibility come into play? The reasoning isn't sound at all. Ti user logic grasps a system knowing the insides and outs and updates it based on the every stage in a process. The Ti chess player most certainly has an advantage tactics-wise.
You've mentioned the semantics of the chess names though there are already defined methods of play in chess knowledge.

Here are sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tactic
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/gene...ference-indeed

Essentially, chess strategy is a longer term planning of a chess game and this is more suited to the NiTe user over the TiNe user. They envision a game and how it will play out and use a particular strategy over time. Isn't this more defining of Ni anyway? Inclination towards time-centric ideals.

You are contradicting the meaning of rationality and irrationality as well as the tactical and strategic dichotomy to a lesser extent.

TIME (T) is irrational, it is flexible, adaptive. ILI are irrational, by that fact they adapt to a situation. Again most importantly you misinterpret ILI's vision generation as static when it is in fact dynamic, ever changing and adapting.

Since when is STRUCTURE (L) flexible? (L) is static. The meaning of strategy and tactics in socionics and chess are not the same, logically speaking following socionics axioms ILIs fit more so the chess tactic mindset.

You are appear to be mixing MBTI's axioms with socionics. If you've been following Gulenko you'd note that MBTI INTPs are more likely to be Socionics ILI, nevertheless the theories are largely not compatible.

TIME (T) =/= Ni
STRUCTURE (L) =/= Ti

[Oaky]

You are contradicting the meaning of rationality and irrationality as well as the tactical and strategic dichotomy to a lesser extent.

TIME (T) is irrational, it is flexible, adaptive. ILI are irrational, by that fact they adapt to a situation. Again most importantly you misinterpret ILI's vision generation as static when it is in fact dynamic, ever changing and adapting.

Since when is STRUCTURE (L) flexible? (L) is static. The meaning of strategy and tactics in socionics and chess are not the same, logically speaking following socionics axioms ILIs fit more so the chess tactic mindset.

You are appear to be mixing MBTI's axioms with socionics. If you've been following Gulenko you'd note that MBTI INTPs are more likely to be Socionics ILI, nevertheless the theories are largely not compatible.

TIME (T) =/= Ni
STRUCTURE (L) =/= Ti

Good clarity.

[strangeling]

Hey, this is interesting. I recently had a lot of downtime and was playing chess with a bunch of people. I've never really been into chess, but gave it a shot. It turns out my play style is to counter my opponent as best I can, forcing them to make moves that slowly picks away at their ability to reinforce their moves with other pieces. I take a lot of time to move, but this works very well for me. But sometimes I'll play someone that sets me up for leaving my king open to a one-move check-mate or some other strategy that depends on a particular set-up on the board; these things are hard for me to see until they happen, but I guess these more advanced players have strategies that they are employing. Anyway, it made me realize I'm good at countering people, but not good at strategy. And maybe strategy falls more under experience, but it's interesting that you made a distinction between something I realized while playing chess.

[Soupman]

Hey, this is interesting. I recently had a lot of downtime and was playing chess with a bunch of people. I've never really been into chess, but gave it a shot. It turns out my play style is to counter my opponent as best I can, forcing them to make moves that slowly picks away at their ability to reinforce their moves with other pieces. I take a lot of time to move, but this works very well for me. But sometimes I'll play someone that sets me up for leaving my king open to a one-move check-mate or some other strategy that depends on a particular set-up on the board; these things are hard for me to see until they happen, but I guess these more advanced players have strategies that they are employing. Anyway, it made me realize I'm good at countering people, but not good at strategy. And maybe strategy falls more under experience, but it's interesting that you made a distinction between something I realized while playing chess.

You describe irrationality there, what is your TIM?

[strangeling]

ILI or IEI, most probably. It's hard for me to feel like I am one type or another. I tend to act differently at times, depending on where my emotions are at. I'm not really sure, but I have a lot of Fi and Ni with some Ti thrown in there. So maybe IEI does make sense. But I can identify with the ILI descriptions too. I think being a leading subtype makes the creative function less differentiated, theoretically and conceptually speaking.

[Olduvai]

depending on where my emotions are at

sounds kinda like Fe to me

[The Ineffable]

My understanding:

Adaptability comes from either Dynamic Ego, Extroversion (Bodies Base), Internal (feeling, intuiting, anticipating), Irrationality - not necessarily a complete list, and it depends [1]. There is no one silver bullet here.

Note how Irrational functions are necessarily either [Extroverted (Bodies) and Static] or Introverted (Fields) and Dynamic].

It is natural to develop one's plan internally isolated for Ji (LII case at hand), however the Je-led types don't work this way. Je types are (exclusively) event-led, therefore the simple j/p distinction does not explain this case. That is the Je "rigidness" if we may call it so.
---

ILI:
- Ni-Base (Internal Dynamic Fields): a generalized [BF] feeling of where given situations lead to - as in starting and end points (not immediate effects, which pertain to Si - External). Intermediary stages are expected just not determined. A constant [BF] heuristic sense of direction and search for possibilities.
- Te-Creative (External Dynamic Bodies): regular update on the actual situation. Extracts exclusively the facts from the current situation (no such thing as "about to" - Fe).
Overall: a tactical person - not bluntly merry as a Si-lead - always in anticipation. Flexible and opportunistic.

LII:
- Ti-Base (External Static Fields): conviction that rules/laws can be unfolded to explain anything that can be. Rejection of the necessity to look up the ever-branching development of events for advantages. Victory must be secured by consistent proper/correct actions - expecting opportunities gives no assurance. Pretty much like any Ti type, just it differs from the (Extroverted) Ti-Creative types in the sense that the latter apply strict laws on particular cases, while the former requires a well developed system to encompass anything there can be [2].
- Ne-Creative (Internal Static Bodies): regularly connects patterns in what is experienced, make analogies and determine known abstract regularities in any seen configuration. Takes fixed points (references) in the configuration of objects, being able to recognize principles based on it.
Overall: definitely strategic, does not require comprehensive knowledge and experience for a complete taxonomy of all arrangements there are, but following their existing set of principles [3].
---

[BF] - Base function, because of it it's constant, generalized, the program one works in.
[1] - the Internal characteristic (N, F) on the one hand gives a less strict reasoning, just it is subjective (belief) and therefore inertial - the lack of conformance to external dependencies - rules, facts - is a sense a lack of adaptability.
[2] - Ti-Creative (ILE, SLE): the ideal is global consistency, requires compromise for particular truths, intention to reinterpret the rules or find new ones. Ti-Base (LII, LSI): the ideal is consistency in all particular cases, requires compromise in the least of them, intention is to closer inspect and reinterpret the facts more properly to make them fit in. The insecurity given by the Creative function makes the former search for new solutions and the latter detail-oriented.
[3] - not Se: lazier but deeply insightful when accurate. Same with Ni in opposition with Si - "shortcut", pattern thinking.

[Soupman]

My understanding:

Adaptability comes from either Dynamic Ego, Extroversion (Bodies Base), Internal (feeling, intuiting, anticipating), Irrationality - not necessarily a complete list, and it depends [1]. There is no one silver bullet here.

Note how Irrational functions are necessarily either [Extroverted (Bodies) and Static] or Introverted (Fields) and Dynamic].

It is natural to develop one's plan internally isolated for Ji (LII case at hand), however the Je-led types don't work this way. Je types are (exclusively) event-led, therefore the simple j/p distinction does not explain this case. That is the Je "rigidness" if we may call it so.
---

ILI:
- Ni-Base (Internal Dynamic Fields): a generalized [BF] feeling of where given situations lead to - as in starting and end points (not immediate effects, which pertain to Si - External). Intermediary stages are expected just not determined. A constant [BF] heuristic sense of direction and search for possibilities.
- Te-Creative (External Dynamic Bodies): regular update on the actual situation. Extracts exclusively the facts from the current situation (no such thing as "about to" - Fe).
Overall: a tactical person - not bluntly merry as a Si-lead - always in anticipation. Flexible and opportunistic.

LII:
- Ti-Base (External Static Fields): conviction that rules/laws can be unfolded to explain anything that can be. Rejection of the necessity to look up the ever-branching development of events for advantages. Victory must be secured by consistent proper/correct actions - expecting opportunities gives no assurance. Pretty much like any Ti type, just it differs from the (Extroverted) Ti-Creative types in the sense that the latter apply strict laws on particular cases, while the former requires a well developed system to encompass anything there can be [2].
- Ne-Creative (Internal Static Bodies): regularly connects patterns in what is experienced, make analogies and determine known abstract regularities in any seen configuration. Takes fixed points (references) in the configuration of objects, being able to recognize principles based on it.
Overall: definitely strategic, does not require comprehensive knowledge and experience for a complete taxonomy of all arrangements there are, but following their existing set of principles [3].
---

[BF] - Base function, because of it it's constant, generalized, the program one works in.
[1] - the Internal characteristic (N, F) on the one hand gives a less strict reasoning, just it is subjective (belief) and therefore inertial - the lack of conformance to external dependencies - rules, facts - is a sense a lack of adaptability.
[2] - Ti-Creative (ILE, SLE): the ideal is global consistency, requires compromise for particular truths, intention to reinterpret the rules or find new ones. Ti-Base (LII, LSI): the ideal is consistency in all particular cases, requires compromise in the least of them, intention is to closer inspect and reinterpret the facts more properly to make them fit in. The insecurity given by the Creative function makes the former search for new solutions and the latter detail-oriented.
[3] - not Se: lazier but deeply insightful when accurate. Same with Ni in opposition with Si - "shortcut", pattern thinking.

You have the alpha NT bias, it leads to a distorted view of gamma NT intellectualism. The definition of Te as event focus is far removed from the intellectual perspective of the process, its not about events at all but rather decoding the rules behind reality.

This thread by peter bartl, helps actually illuminate the intellectual perspective ENTJs have, this actually represents the kind of ENTJ Sir Issac Newton is, they are very introverted. The enterpriser by Gulenko is more of a bizarre ESE, generally the gamma quadra values barely apply to gamma NTs and SFs alike when diagnosing the TIMs. Some one can be rational/irrational, intuitive/sensing logic/ethics but lack the values ascribed to the given quadras.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Rational-ENTj

The ENTj is a very rational person. He lives with an internal set of principles. These are not arbitrary or merely accepted from conventional wisdom. Rather, they stem from a critical examination of any available empirical evidence at disposal. The ENTj thrives for objectivity. He wants to know the "Right" answer to everything. For this reason, he is particularly fond of measures and tests because they enable him to objectify reality, helping him to make correct decisions and accurate predictions. The ENTj thinks like a scientist, only accepting things if they have been put to an objective test. If you need to make an objective decision about anything, ask an ENTj.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji0yHpjnhKk

He is the author of the article talking, Peter Bartl the ENTJ, he self types as that. Maybe you may ascribe to a different theory of socionics that will lead you to diagnose him differently.

[The Ineffable]

The definition of Te as event focus is far removed from the intellectual perspective of the process, its not about events at all but rather decoding the rules behind reality.

This denotes to me a quasi-total lack of understanding of the information aspects and what is the concept of Te in Socionics. Decoding and rules have and can have nothing to do with Te, which is a fully objective IE - the only one fully objective. "Decoding rules" entails in its meaning at least a subjective part. That can be said about any other IE, just precisely not for Te!

We are talking about the Te as a function and an IE, not about Te types - only as in focus in this case.

The ENTj is a very rational person. He lives with an internal set of principles. These are not arbitrary or merely accepted from conventional wisdom. Rather, they stem from a critical examination of any available empirical evidence at disposal. The ENTj thrives for objectivity. He wants to know the "Right" answer to everything. For this reason, he is particularly fond of measures and tests because they enable him to objectify reality, helping him to make correct decisions and accurate predictions. The ENTj thinks like a scientist, only accepting things if they have been put to an objective test.

I don't deny Te is the cognitive base of the natural sciences. In fact I previously stated that I view it as the base of all knowledge. Let us clarify first what the meanings of objectivity I use:
- rational: logic, laws. Predicates of necessary truths. Pure reason. Subjective as in rational, intellectual.
- empirical: facts, events. Fully objective for being strictly the evocation of the empirical. But here objective is used differently than the above, it's fully "real-world". Otherwise it predicates contingent truths and dependent on senses. For this kind of objectivity Te types normally thrive for.

Please tell the meaning you use for "the right answer". Sounds like an unitary view of all one's accepted laws, but that pertains to Ti. Just I might misinterpret you here.

Te Ego mindset makes accurate predictions by disparate laws resulting from exhaustive experience. *Disparate* aka constrained by experiments rather than previous understanding. This is where I have doubts about the meaning of "the right answer", since they are accurate in terms of predictibility in known scenarios, but not in terms of global consistency, where unless assumptions are set in place for dark areas, they might break or not fit with existing laws. (classic example - the existence of dark matter VS MOND in astrophysics)

If you need to make an objective decision about anything, ask an ENTj.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji0yHpjnhKk

He is the author of the article talking, Peter Bartl the ENTJ, he self types as that. Maybe you may ascribe to a different theory of socionics that will lead you to diagnose him differently.

If he (and you?) is Expat (forum username), then yes, I used to type him differently than LIE. Not sure about Alpha NT, ILI would fit, too, I think. I will listen to the conference after I relocate, I'm in a hurry and the sound of the video is too low. Note that I don't believe my typings are 100% correct, but I am convinced that my understanding of Model A is close to, and perfecting.

[Soupman]

This denotes to me a quasi-total lack of understanding of the information aspects and what is the concept of Te in Socionics. Decoding and rules have and can have nothing to do with Te, which is a fully objective IE - the only one fully objective. "Decoding rules" entails in its meaning at least a subjective part. That can be said about any other IE, just precisely not for Te!

We are talking about the Te as a function and an IE, not about Te types - only as in focus in this case.

I don't deny Te is the cognitive base of the natural sciences. In fact I previously stated that I view it as the base of all knowledge. Let us clarify first what the meanings of objectivity I use:
- rational: logic, laws. Predicates of necessary truths. Pure reason. Subjective as in rational, intellectual.
- empirical: facts, events. Fully objective for being strictly the evocation of the empirical. But here objective is used differently than the above, it's fully "real-world". Otherwise it predicates contingent truths and dependent on senses. For this kind of objectivity Te types normally thrive for.

Please tell the meaning you use for "the right answer". Sounds like an unitary view of all one's accepted laws, but that pertains to Ti. Just I might misinterpret you here.

Te Ego mindset makes accurate predictions by disparate laws resulting from exhaustive experience. *Disparate* aka constrained by experiments rather than previous understanding. This is where I have doubts about the meaning of "the right answer", since they are accurate in terms of predictibility in known scenarios, but not in terms of global consistency, where unless assumptions are set in place for dark areas, they might break or not fit with existing laws. (classic example - the existence of dark matter VS MOND in astrophysics)

If he (and you?) is Expat (forum username), then yes, I used to type him differently than LIE. Not sure about Alpha NT, ILI would fit, too, I think. I will listen to the conference after I relocate, I'm in a hurry and the sound of the video is too low. Note that I don't believe my typings are 100% correct, but I am convinced that my understanding of Model A is close to, and perfecting.

People here accuse me of being socionics britannica guy, due to the insights I have and how I started introducing a lot ideas that challenge traditional socionics understanding.

Nevertheless, what you find is that amoung researchers is the acknowledgement that actually socionics has diverged a lot, Gulenko admits that too.

Your type will be different between different schools due to the nuances that have lead the theories to divert. SGS and SSRI both have radically different socionics theories.

[Olduvai]

Decoding and rules have and can have nothing to do with Te, which is a fully objective IE - the only one fully objective.

Why or how isn't Se fully objective? Also, what is the difference between rational and irrational IEs? What about a rational IE makes it rational?

[The Ineffable]

People here accuse me of being socionics britannica guy, due to the insights I have and how I started introducing a lot ideas that challenge traditional socionics understanding.

Nevertheless, what you find is that amoung researchers is the acknowledgement that actually socionics has diverged a lot, Gulenko admits that too.

Your type will be different between different schools due to the nuances that have lead the theories to divert. SGS and SSRI both have radically different socionics theories.

I think typing and the theory are different matters. When it comes to agreeing on the TIMs of actual people, I agree with different "schools". But in respect to the theory, nothing can be caled "Socionics" unless it obeys the axioms of Model A, at least most and the fundamentals and their implications (analytical enrichment only). Gulenko does not speaks Socionics for a long time. He makes a living out of this and has to come up with new shit all the time, I presume.

I think no one has issues with new theories, but why do we have to talk about different things as the same "LIE", "ILE" and whatnot, and disagree with each other?...

[The Ineffable]

Why or how isn't Se fully objective?

A very good question and I am glad you asked.

Formally, telling that Se is Static would suffice. We know that while Te is Bodies, Dynamic and Exernal, Se is the same except it is Static. But this requires the understanding of these fundamentals which are quite abstract and they can be comprehended the other way around - from type/function descriptions.

Just we note that those properties are consistent with what we know about Te and Se - the former tells (facts), the latter identifies (objects). Objects do not exist out there as we gather them, we partially make them, but facts do.

Se: a duck
Te: something that walks and quacks like a duck.

Notice the difference?

Think of a solid heavy iron ball that you see (not merely the concept of such an object). It is kind of obvious what it is, just we make a lot of assumptions about it in reality:
- looks like a ball from a certain angle, but might be flat on the other side;
- may be hollow;
- may be wooden metal-painted.

One does not need to make assumptions to tell facts and to test objects - round from this angle, metal surface, weights this amount on a scale - but when it comes to know what to expect from things, they necessarily have to be made - and that is what is Se about. Sure, reasonable men, unless in emergency, won't rely on assumptions - without testing - the mere intention to go first for that object apparently best fit for a certain purpose and none other is given by Se.

It is impossible to tell the intrinsic properties of things (say potential, strength, etc) without a background (subjective) prior to manifesting, do you agree? Therefore, only post-factum, occurences, have the most support in the real world. [1]

(Side note: Te focus does not make one merely an observer. Te is always blocked with Ni and Si - extracts rules from these observations, "how things work")

Also, what is the difference between rational and irrational IEs? What about a rational IE makes it rational?

This is hard to explain and while I can generally tell what about this dichotomy is correct/incorrect, it is hard for me to put all together and think about all its facets.

First of all, Rationality is just a type attitude when the IEs are blocked in a certain configuration, never the IEs themselves can be Rational/Irrational. Though we call "rational" IEs those that make a Rational type when they are found in Accepting functions (and Irrational the others) just for convenience. This specification is mandatory in understand Rationality.

Analytically, the "Rational" IEs are those that are either Fields and Static or Bodies and Dynamic (Irrational IEs are either Bodies and Static or Fields and Dynamic). The Irrational IEs somehow mix the objective and subjective in these respects:
- Bodies and Static (Se, Ne): explained above about Se. "Real" objects before/without fulfilling their capacities dynamically (in action). They need material support but no (dynamic) process.
- Fields and Dynamic (Si, Ni): abstract or conceptual actions, a-priori determination of processes, cause-effect, etc. They don't need material support but intuit the process/actions.
---

[1] - only limited by senses, as all empirical knowledge, of course.

[Soupman]

I think typing and the theory are different matters. When it comes to agreeing on the TIMs of actual people, I agree with different "schools". But in respect to the theory, nothing can be caled "Socionics" unless it obeys the axioms of Model A, at least most and the fundamentals and their implications (analytical enrichment only). Gulenko does not speaks Socionics for a long time. He makes a living out of this and has to come up with new shit all the time, I presume.

I think no one has issues with new theories, but why do we have to talk about different things as the same "LIE", "ILE" and whatnot, and disagree with each other?...

Model a, does not survive scientific scrutiny, it is not the holy grail. One of the problems of socionics generally is how it stands on the fringes of pseudoscience.

Model A, quadra values and a lot more material have been questioned and found lacking.

I do not blame Dmitry Lytov for abandoning it , there is nothing there

[ClownsandEntropy]

"Ah yes, let's play chess. I hate this game because I hate losing, but what the hey. Let's try not to get emotionally tied up in this one, hey Clowns?"
***
"Okay, I don't know what to do... let's just aimlessly advance pieces to stronger positions...*
***
"Ooh! There's a weak-looking opportunity there. Yeah, like if I can get a bishop-y kind of attack and have it defended then that might work. Okay, let's make that happen."
***
"Damn, okay well that failed. Um, back to aimless advancement?"

^that's generally how my internal monologue would go in a game.
1. I'm not very good with actually focusing and seeing all the possibilities (not ?),
2. I'm more one to realise that something makes it look an opportunity (Holographic > Algorithmic thinking? http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...e_Styles(wiki))
3. And then make that happen (tactics?)

[Olduvai]

Just we note that those properties are consistent with what we know about Te and Se - the former tells (facts), the latter identifies (objects).

Don't Te and Se simply identify properties of objects? The former their explicit and dynamic properties, and the latter their explicit and static properties?

Se: a duck
Te: something that walks and quacks like a duck.

Regarding a duck:
Se - that duck has brown (explicit and static property) feathers (object) and a green-tinged (explicit and static property) beak (object)
Te - that duck (object) thrusts its beak into the water to catch fish (explicit and dynamic property)

Regarding a person:
Se - that person is tall
Ne - that person is smart
Fe - that person feels angry
Te - that person should do X

Regarding a flag:
Se - that flag is red, white, and blue
Ne - that flag is an American flag
Fe - ? (I think ethical functions specifically have to do with people)
Te - that crank at the base of the flagpole raises and lowers the flag

A couple weeks ago I was talking with an ENTJ about disc golfing. He was describing the action of his driver, and this is what he said: "what it does is, first it banks to the right, then it cuts back to the left and does a kind of figure eight". That is what his driver does, that is its action or function, and that is a fact -- every time you throw it, that is what it's gonna do. Te is explicit object dynamics, or what things do. Te is the logic of action, it has to do with a thing's function or purpose.

It is impossible to tell the intrinsic properties of things (say potential, strength, etc) without a background (subjective) prior to manifesting, do you agree? Therefore, only post-factum, occurences, have the most support in the real world.

Interesting. Could you elaborate a bit on why it is impossible to do so?

First of all, Rationality is just a type attitude when the IEs are blocked in a certain configuration, never the IEs themselves can be Rational/Irrational. Though we call "rational" IEs those that make a Rational type when they are found in Accepting functions (and Irrational the others) just for convenience. This specification is mandatory in understand Rationality.

Hmm. I guess what I'm wondering is where does the rational type attitude come from?

[The Ineffable]

Interesting. Could you elaborate a bit on why it is impossible to do so?

Hmm. I guess what I'm wondering is where does the rational type attitude come from?

I'm in a hurry and will be away for a few days, just answering what is most important and easy.

Re first question: because before something that proves/tests those properties occurs, those properties are made-up in our minds. That that duck has whatever properties that do not pertain to a duck is Te, but telling that those are a beak, feathers and brown - with their inherent properties (feathers are flexible, beak is hard, etc) and potential - are come from Se. I recommend you to read about Immanuel Kant's "synthetic a posteriori" judgments, or better, the whole Critique of Pure Reason, to get a background on what truths we actually know and not (the Critique) and that all experience is dynamic, it's occurences (synthetic a posteriori).

Remember that in Socionics Te is not logic in the true sense.

Re second: when the Base function of a certain type is set to either Bodies + Dynamic or Fields + Static for Rational, or Fields + Dynamic or Bodies + Static for Irrational.

[Olduvai]

Re first question: because before something that proves/tests those properties occurs, those properties are made-up in our minds. That that duck has whatever properties that do not pertain to a duck is Te, but telling that those are a beak, feathers and brown - with their inherent properties (feathers are flexible, beak is hard, etc) and potential - are come from Se.

I see what you mean. We can only say "this duck has a hard beak" if we have an idea of what a beak is and/or what hardness is to begin with.

I recommend you to read about Immanuel Kant's "synthetic a posteriori" judgments, or better, the whole Critique of Pure Reason, to get a background on what truths we actually know and not (the Critique) and that all experience is dynamic, it's occurences (synthetic a posteriori).

I've been meaning to read Kant, but I keep putting it off in favor of doing other things. What do you think about what Quine had to say about the analytic/synthetic distinction? I don't know enough about it to comment either way, but Quine apparently strongly rejected it.

Remember that in Socionics Te is not logic in the true sense.

What is logic in the true sense?


Okay, back to Kant sorta: might the following quote from Wikipedia essentially describe Gulenko's cognitive styles?

The analytic/synthetic distinction and the a priori/a posteriori distinction together yield four types of propositions:

1. analytic a priori (Causal-Deterministic)
2. synthetic a priori (Dialectical-Algorithmic)
3. analytic a posteriori (Holographic-Panoramic)
4. synthetic a posteriori (Vortical-Synergetic)

[The Ineffable]

I see what you mean. We can only say "this duck has a hard beak" if we have an idea of what a beak is and/or what hardness is to begin with.

Yes, just note (1) we use all IEs and (2) the concepts of objects are Fields. And RE (2), don't confuse the personal concept of a beak (Static Fields) with the empirical recognition of such beak (Static Bodies) - which is also partially personal/subjective, hence the subjectivity of Se.

I've been meaning to read Kant, but I keep putting it off in favor of doing other things. What do you think about what Quine had to say about the analytic/synthetic distinction? I don't know enough about it to comment either way, but Quine apparently strongly rejected it.

If he rejects it, that is his problem. If he accepts it, then what Kant says is sensible, simply as that. I am not interested in getting too deep with Quine's crap, his doubt is pretty much as relevant to formal thought as is whether real numbers really exists to maths, I don't see any reason to mix the two approaches. That analytical statements can be made is a premise of Kant's distinction. One can't reject just/pure reasoning rules with observational arguments. If we say A has all and exactly the same properties of B, we can tell a priori that if B is square, then A is square - and we can understand this irrespective of how one would formulate it in language.

What is logic in the true sense?

Ti, in a nutshell, because I was referring to formal logic. On the other hand, Te is fundamental to inductive reasoning: Te->Fi or rules obey nature, in opposition to deductive reasoning, Ti->Fe, where nature is expected to obey the rules. [1]

Okay, back to Kant sorta: might the following quote from Wikipedia essentially describe Gulenko's cognitive styles?

No, in my opinion. First of all, the analytic a posteriori was not defined by Kant, so I don't know what definition you would want to use for it.

I agree with Gulenko's conception that Static types think in analytical terms, that is all I can say about that. I completely oppose the view that LII is a mainly inductive type.

As for a priori / a posteriory, I think they are strictly related to rational VS empirical thought, the Fields respectively Bodies IEs.

So, since Kant has not dealt with modality or heuristic in his classification:
- Analytic a priori: Ti
- Analytic a posteriori: Se
- Synthetic a priori: Si
- Synthetic a posteriori: Te

While Kant has not seen any possiblity for the analytic a posteriori, I think such thing actually exists and is fundamental to our knowledge: statements at the moment of ostensive definitions [2]. They are obviously a posteriori and the predicate concept is included in the subject concept. Just it is all in an a posteriori fashion, which is where the confusion comes from.

That classification above only points to the IEs, sets the focus on their meaning, but does not determine or limit them. For example, while primarily Se is used for ostensive definitions, it is also used at identifying a known object, coupled with a Fields counterpart (always blocked with). [3]
---

[1] - sounds stupid, but wihtout it the justice system could not be applied - just an example. Imagine that: you point a gun at the bank's employees, ask for all their money, but in your mind you just wanted access to their washroom. It would be unfair for you to be sentenced for "attempted bank robbery" before you actually run away with the money, but this is how people work, you can't make them believe you.
[2] - the moment of perceiving the object or "of sense-perception" as per Aristotle in Chapter 1 in Posterior Analytics, FYI.
[3] - "this is a beak" is a combined thought of "[I perceive this as] [what I know to be a beak]"

[ClownsandEntropy]

This is also an interesting thread on this topic: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-a-chess-match

They suggest holographic thinkers are best for chess. Everyone gets around the ILIs. They also say other stuff.

[Soupman]

This is also an interesting thread on this topic: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-a-chess-match

They suggest holographic thinkers are best for chess. Everyone gets around the ILIs. They also say other stuff.

The original posts suggests ILI Dialectic Algorithmic, nevertheless, the argument seems inferior since it negates the fact that chess is Ti in nature: it is about confining one's self to a set of standards, in which you must thrive under.

Te instead is more of pragmatism, with its philosophy being whatever works, therefore having to be confined to a set of principles stifles their thinking. The theoretical, subjective subjugation, is what makes all introverted IM thrive, factoring the energymodel, it makes far more sense to consider SLI, ILI, LII, LSI as mutually as Ti types. It breaks the sacred quadra values, but once you start to move towards falsification, many idea prove fallible.

The personal biases in the Alpha authors are revealed in the face of evidence; Viktor generally adapts his theory by saying that its normal for quadra not being rigidly confined.

[The Exception]

I don't play chess. Go ahead and kick me out of LII.

[Beautiful sky]

How come no one asks these questions to an INFj