Page 49 of 73 FirstFirst ... 3945464748495051525359 ... LastLast
Results 1,921 to 1,960 of 2884

Thread: Your typing of forum members (archived '15-'17)

  1. #1921
    c esi-se 6w7 spsx ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,833
    Mentioned
    912 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like tacos, and my best friend likes tacos and that's a fact. So saying, "my best friend and I like tacos, so tacos are good" would be an inductive inference based on facts. Would it be strong Te? I think there must be something missing here, or some kind of standard not being met, but I don't know how to place it.

  2. #1922
    c esi-se 6w7 spsx ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,833
    Mentioned
    912 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I guess I do think that the facts need to be externally observable in a way that allows others to follow the chain of reasoning. I don't know if I have a good theoretical basis for saying this but its the only way it makes sense to me, the only way I can conceptualize Te as a strength and something useful to me and not just something that everybody does all the time.

  3. #1923
    Slade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    I can look up "fact" in the dictionary. I'm interested in what you have to say.
    I don't think I'll be able to do much better. A fact is something that exists, that has happened or occurred. The scientific method is a process in which facts are verified, but facts do not need to be verified for them to be facts by definition. Facts are observed by everyone, they aren't some abstract concept you only get in scientific journals. They are learnable first-hand. The worth in academic sources is in verifying facts to be 'true' and quantifying the phenomena. @Resonare fails to draw this distinction. I believe he is speaking through his own incompetence with the function as his version of Te being related to "inductive inferences", "creating explanations", "holistic formulas", has nothing to do with Te. It sounds more like he's trying to understand Te through Ti (and failing).
    Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type

  4. #1924
    Slimpack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    The Milton Bradley Time Travel Research Center
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    its more like xeno's paradox where you just defined it into existence. motion is possible and in the same way mutual understanding is possible, socionics tends to elucidate the ways in which people misunderstand eachother but its more like information is a palindrome and understanding how it is metabolized is the ladder with which one can begin to see it from the other angle (a kind of transcendental deduction). mutual understanding is a demonstrable fact as much as motion so these Ti constructs that peolpe find convincing for even one second I find amusing because its so silly

    understanding can be subjective and mutually understood at the same time. intersubjectivity occurs all the time, and it while it is not mutually identical from the point of view of the subjects it is nevetheless isomorphic

    its how strat can be compatible with gulenko. while one can point out inconsistencies between them, those are things that in principle can be smoothed over. it is Fi and Ti interpretations of the same phenomena, both are still in process so there are inconsistencies even controlling for differences between Fi and Ti but those are specific instances of mistakes rooted in human error, not substantive irreconcilable difference as a matter of structure. there is no fundamental incompatibility between the two ways of looking at things, rather they are separate levels of analysis that are complimentary, and mutually understandable. if theres anything exclusive to individual types in that sense its their creative potential to originate the expressions, but we have role functions for a reason

    furthermore there will always be someone that can deny this or that facet of knowledge in virtue of their capacity for free will, but that doesn't make transmission of understanding in principle somehow permanently out of reach, it just means you can't force anything on anyone, which is kind of what Ti is in the business of doing--it often does take on the form of intellectual violence, which is precisely what many post modern philosophers pointed out as a feature of modern discourse

    it is a Ti presupposition though that without such force mutual understanding is somehow impossible. I do think that presupposition along with Ti valuing does contribute to what I perceive as a fascist streak in alpha and beta which is what post modernism, I believe, was largely taking aim at

    the genius of psychology, especially "intuitive" (in the socionics sense) psychology, i.e.: analytic or jungian psychology is that it represents a breakthrough in a post-enlightenment age where we unified for first time both science and religious narratives (i.e.:ethics) under one common framework in terms both types can understand without diminishing one or the other. contemporary academic psychology has in that sense taken a step back when it retreats into reductionist Ti modes of understanding like neuroscience, except I don't mean to say its worthless because its a step back but its more like it focuses exclusively on one subordinate level of analysis: science. however we still have a ton of unknown territory in that realm so progress on that front is still valuable at contributing to the higher level from the bottom up (and of course for its own sake, i.e. medical advances etc).

    what makes socionics uniquely compelling to me, is I always understood religion and science were just different modes of understanding the same thing in equally valid terms but with different goals implied, but both which are necessary to the human condition. science always struck me as half a man, as did "primitive" narratives such as the earth being made in 6 days: neither by itself seemed "true" to me... it is precisely for this reason that intersubjective understanding is possible because only one side is not good enough for those that have a sense of something greater and its that sense that allows one to bridge the gap. perhaps not everyone is able or willing to pursue that, but that is saying nothing more than some people will never understand eachother, but not that no one can possibly understand eachother under socionics (i.e.: it does not necessarily entail a contradiction--is not self refuting in the sense you portray it as)

    jung breaks it down very simply: any idea has logical content and affective content, logical content is colloquially considered objective because it is stripped of its affective content and therefore more easily transmitted via syntax as a logical representation or "proposition." but moreso than that within the realm of logic and ethics you can view it from either side, which is the difference between Ti/Te and Fi/Fe. so once you get the complete picture then you're in a position to understand other types, and misunderstandings result from projections which is essentially viewing whatever logical or ethical propositions someone is putting out "from the wrong side" i.e. what Fe would mean if it were saying what the Fi person is saying just now. This overall picture, to me, is intuition + Te, but maybe that's just my projection. perhaps it is, and projections are inevitable, but my overall point here is, that a sufficiently advanced concept like socionics because of its intuitive content is such that even if you're projecting it is still valid in that it can be viewed from multiple angles and retain its integrity. which is what I would define as "gospel"-- its imperfect, of course, but its getting closer. to me my understanding of the bible is that God made it such that viewed by anyone it had a valid message for them and that's what made it perfect. i think that's because its perfect intuition in a pre-scientific world (in fact its hard to imagine science without christianity first). to me pure intuition is in some sense the sense of the unity between logic and feeling--its implications back and forth--and socionics and jungian psychology is a very intuitive theory--and intuition is what bridges Ti and Fi and what makes intersubjectivity possible (and is open to anyone, not just N egos or whatever)
    I think that mutual understanding between people in quadra that have no valued IMs in common is possible. For instance, if someone came up with something that is demonstrably true, or useful, I would think other people in different quadras wouldn't be able to deny it's merit. I kind of thought of it as a crew in a submarine finding a large rock in the ocean with it's sonar and then communicating this fact to a crew in a lighthouse, but then the people in the lighthouse don't believe them about the rock because the people in the lighthouse didn't see it with their search light. Eh, nevermind that's a weird example. Anyway, what I mean is, just because a truth or insight was discovered using a different cognitive tool than the ones I use to figure out what's true, doesn't mean that I should automatically doubt it. That's sort of why I don't see the intertype relations that I've read being that accurate. A lot of the time with socionics you can tell that it was made with the end goal of telling people who they should and shouldn't pursue close relationships with, and it winds up getting way more authoritative than it really has the ability to be. Non-type related factors are assumed in duality relationship descriptions to make them seem better than they necessarily would be, and non-type related factors are assumed in confilictor relationship descriptions to make them seem worse than they necessarily would be. I think there is truth in socionics too though. It seems like socionics iaccurately predicts which people's behavior you will have an easy and intuitive understanding of, and whose problem-solving, and fun-having approaches are the same as your own. Well actually when I put it that way, I guess it would be smarter to find and get to know people in my own quadra . Nevermind, I've changed my opinion! Soionics is the best and most accurate thing ever! Well, I dunno. I still think it's pretty exaggerated. For example, I wouldn't rule out going out with someone in the Gamma quadra. But I feel like, I'd have to put a lot of effort in to making sure we're both on the same page and aren't misunderstanding each other intentions/ideas. Like you said, this could be caused by me interpreting Fi observations through an Fe lense. In any case, I don't think it would necessarily be doomed to failure like socionics implies.

    "I always understood religion and science were just different modes of understanding the same thing in equally valid terms" This is an interesting perspective. Although I feel like I'd be more inclined to agree if you said, "spirituality and science were just different modes of understanding the same thing in equally valid terms". In my mind, when I think religion I automatically think The vivid hallucinations from a guy 2000 years ago getting elevated in status to the directives of an all powerful morally perfect deity. And I feel like that approach is clearly not a valid way of understanding things.
    "I find you can often find humor just by turning something upside-down. Like a small child." — Emo Philips

  5. #1925
    AbZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Midwestern U.S.
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    here's an if-then statement with some food for thought. If Ti says there's only one right way to view anything, then Te says there's only one right way to do anything. Standards therefore, approved methods and so on are all in the realm of Te. Those who wish to standardize the process of typing whether it be through tests or what-have-you are wishing to enforce Te, not Ti. The whole idea of an approved canon is Te-based as are all standards of that nature. Regulations, standard operating procedures, laws - all in the realm of Te.
    Why would regulations, standard operating procedures, and laws all be Te? You realize that laws are just a set of rules based on principles, right? I don't see how laws could even be created without Ti. I don't think I've ever seen an LSI description that doesn't mention laws and regulations or something to that effect. Logical structure is Ti so equating laws with Te doesn't really make sense.

  6. #1926
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    I guess I do think that the facts need to be externally observable in a way that allows others to follow the chain of reasoning. I don't know if I have a good theoretical basis for saying this but its the only way it makes sense to me, the only way I can conceptualize Te as a strength and something useful to me and not just something that everybody does all the time.
    everyone does do it all the time though, its just to a more or less sophisticated degree and in concert with other functions (primarily intuition and sensing, but also Ti/Fi). for example, you can think of science itself as a very sophisticated and synergetic system of checks and balances between many functions, in that way (intuition sensing and thinking). Te is multi factor analysis that draws on data from wherever it can get it, inasmuch as that data is considered "fact"--note people can be wrong about the facts, which gives "fact"-as-data-point-for-Te a lot of range--for better or worse. its Ne and Se that check Te, a lot, for that reason, as well as Ti and Fi

    Te when its actually "working best" and not merely "working" uses verifiable facts, or facts, true or not, that meet the goal when treated as a fact, but that doesn't mean Te "is always right" for lack of a better word (something Te polr loves to point out). a lot of problems with Te users is when they make the assumption that "these facts are all the facts that matter"-- in essence excluding the possibility of improvement on the basis of an assumption that "because x works via Te" that means there necessarily are no other relevant facts left to consider. "the known facts before us are all the facts" is itself a fact or statement about the objective states of affairs that may or may not be true. Te, when it works well, proceeds not by that "cheap" way of moving forward, but by balancing the projected cost or expenditure of spending further time/effort to investigate the unknown facts in order to improve things versus the likely payoff (Si/Ni + Te). this is where you see low D Te fall down a lot because they fail to take this step and simply rely on assumption that may or not be the best payoff (usually not)--this is whats frustrating about "bad" Te
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-25-2017 at 07:04 PM.

  7. #1927
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbZero View Post
    Why would regulations, standard operating procedures, and laws all be Te? You realize that laws are just a set of rules based on principles, right? I don't see how laws could even be created without Ti. I don't think I've ever seen an LSI description that doesn't mention laws and regulations or something to that effect. Logical structure is Ti so equating laws with Te doesn't really make sense.
    laws SOPs and regs are all codified in Ti form but they primarily describe a Te method but its the broader assessment where Ti meets Te that says something like "this way to do it (as recorded) is most effective" that is Te and that quote was in the context of low D or unsophisticated Te, so you're right they're not Te in the productive sense of the word, or in their strict linguistic formulation (i.e.: as if-then chain on paper). a lot of what you're describing is the Ti "caricactureness" of low Te, which is true, you're right, but that whole quote was in the context of me making a Te "caricature" of Ti, so it was more about turnabout than making a totally fair and comprehensive account of Te

  8. #1928
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slimpack View Post
    .
    I basically agree with you and I think a lot of this is different preference in regards to the semantics (from my point of view); i.e.: I think you're right about spirituality and science... i just chose to word it in a more personally salient and feelsy way

    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    I don't think I'll be able to do much better. A fact is something that exists, that has happened or occurred. The scientific method is a process in which facts are verified, but facts do not need to be verified for them to be facts by definition. Facts are observed by everyone, they aren't some abstract concept you only get in scientific journals. They are learnable first-hand. The worth in academic sources is in verifying facts to be 'true' and quantifying the phenomena. @Resonare fails to draw this distinction. I believe he is speaking through his own incompetence with the function as his version of Te being related to "inductive inferences", "creating explanations", "holistic formulas", has nothing to do with Te. It sounds more like he's trying to understand Te through Ti (and failing).
    I wish I could give this 2 likes: I found this very clearly stated and insightful
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-25-2017 at 06:54 PM.

  9. #1929
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Envisioner View Post
    What the hell is up with cognitive function teleology?
    i think the time is ripe to revisit gulenko cognitive styles with that in mind

  10. #1930
    c esi-se 6w7 spsx ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,833
    Mentioned
    912 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just think that with Te usage of facts I can trace what a person is saying without making logical leaps or needing to take their word for anything. Ofc the facts can be wrong, or I can disagree with the inferences being made from them, or it can even be manipulation of the facts to serve their needs, but at least the transparency involved in using generally observable outside information makes what they have to say more reliable and in my language.

  11. #1931
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    @Bertrand I cannot remember if you have, and I am too lazy to check:
    Have you already mentioned what type you think I am? Just curious.
    my personal mode of typing is, probably, a low D Fi reduction to "mine and not mine", which really comes down to alpha/beta v gamma/delta. although I respect that exceptional individuals exist in both categories "good" a/b and "bad" g/d. but when it comes to broad brushing how I "feel" what type people are from within that framework (which on the first pass lacks granularity and its only through "proving" themselves someone "proves" themselves good or bad contra the default presumption based on my innate sense). in that sense I think of myself as gamma and you as alpha or beta, and beyond that I lack a lot of certainty. but I also think that is the most important distinction, and I think you're "correctly" typed inasmuch as that is what really matters, and the same for me

    I think of myself as "gamma introvert" but my respect for lungs has made me think maybe I am not ESI, rather ILI, because I get the distinct feeling we both value the same bead of truth but metabolize it differently
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-25-2017 at 07:47 PM.

  12. #1932
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    I just think that with Te usage of facts I can trace what a person is saying without making logical leaps or needing to take their word for anything. Ofc the facts can be wrong, or I can disagree with the inferences being made from them, or it can even be manipulation of the facts to serve their needs, but at least the transparency involved in using generally observable outside information makes what they have to say more reliable and in my language.
    right, what you're describing is really, as I see it, Te valuing with low dimensionality, higher dimensionality is when Te turns on itself and does the cost benefit analysis on itself, which is probably something vaguely incomprehensible for someone who doesn't do it... but thats the nature of every function, we all have the ability to do some things with greater sophistication than others. what that really makes me wonder is "what its like" to be high dimensional Fi in the same terms. perhaps such a thing is inexpressible and such a thing is the privilege of thinking (to describe itself in language). or perhaps its music/poetry

  13. #1933
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbZero View Post
    Why would regulations, standard operating procedures, and laws all be Te? You realize that laws are just a set of rules based on principles, right? I don't see how laws could even be created without Ti. I don't think I've ever seen an LSI description that doesn't mention laws and regulations or something to that effect. Logical structure is Ti so equating laws with Te doesn't really make sense.
    You've never read Reinin's descriptions? Here's from his LSI description. First fxn is lead (Ti) the "-1" fxn is the ignoring which is Te:

    Function #1 - subjective logic ( ): my understanding, my worldview, and my school. A Maxim's motto is: “I understand the world, therefore I exist”. It is impossible to make them change their mind. The world is the way I understand it. Their understanding is very conservative, crystallized.
    When attacked in the area of the first function, a Maxim becomes aggressive. In the area of the first function a person is confident of himself and leans on his own authority. In case of a Maxim this is their 'school', their view of the world, their ideas about the world. “I know how the world was made, who will teach me about heights and the depths. What evidence do you have to show for? I will explain away all your evidence!” If a Maxim runs into undisputable evidence which he can neither explain nor ignore, he (similar to a Robespierre) needs time to fill up the gaps in their belief system, to improve their world view making it complete and consistent from their point of view. He likes to analyze new data and draw independent conclusions, accepting or rejecting certain things.
    It is easy to drive a Maxim to aggression, just tell them: “Your teacher has no idea what he is talking about!” Their reaction may be absolutely inadequate. And since their creative function is physical action, anything within their hand's reach may be hurled at you. I tried talking to a Maxim in the same manner and was nearly hit by a heavy object thrown at me.

    Function #-1- objective logic ( ): the world is the way I see it, everything else I ignore.
    Real circumstances can be perceived simply as annoying obstacles. If I study, I simply listen to what a teacher says, and my understanding does not differ from the teacher’s; this is my school. In any case it is a fixed set of ideas about the world, certain standard picture. Sometimes real-world notions like visas, traffic rules, criminal code and other social realities may fall in the zone of ignoring. This may cause 'unexpected' problems, even imprisonment. The society does not care take into consideration neither your unique interpretation of the established law nor your type of information metabolism.
    And a definition from Reinin of Te:

    - Objective logic. Logic of the objective world - objective circumstances, facts. Example: the day began and it started raining. Systems, statistics. Event queue. Example: “I am late for work because the bridge collapsed". Laws, political policies of the government, stamps in the passport, traffic laws, prices, private summerhouse property, my territory, and design drawing of a unit. Thinking objectively people usually ask: “I want to know the reality of the matter.”
    I have to run as people are waiting for me and do not have time to elaborate or add my own 2cents. Perhaps later.

  14. #1934
    c esi-se 6w7 spsx ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,833
    Mentioned
    912 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Bertrand my inclination has been ili for you. If I were asked officially I would say "gamma introvert with a pronounced ha" because I respect your judgment and I haven't seen enough to be sure I'm not missing something. But I agree with you wrt getting the sense that we share values and metabolize them differently.

  15. #1935
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    @Bertrand my inclination has been ili for you. If I were asked officially I would say "gamma introvert with a pronounced ha" because I respect your judgment and I haven't seen enough to be sure I'm not missing something. But I agree with you wrt getting the sense that we share values and metabolize them differently.
    I absolutely agree and that Fi/Ni and Ni/Fi can look very close. in fact Nardi says on brain scans gamma introverts are the most isomorphic out of any of the 16 types

    its to the point where I don't think/feel (either on Te or Fi grounds--ha!) it matters and I like "gamma introvert." some of the ESI label is me just being provocative because I like the point we're making


    ESI's are way way smarter than people give them credit for

  16. #1936
    darya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 3w4 sx
    Posts
    2,833
    Mentioned
    256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbZero View Post
    Why would regulations, standard operating procedures, and laws all be Te? You realize that laws are just a set of rules based on principles, right? I don't see how laws could even be created without Ti. I don't think I've ever seen an LSI description that doesn't mention laws and regulations or something to that effect. Logical structure is Ti so equating laws with Te doesn't really make sense.
    i'm confused as well since LSI's in general love rules, order and regulations. They are usually e6 or e1 and often take care that procedures and regulations are being followed correctly. Even one of the LSI subtypes is named Controller . The people I type as LSI are similar as these descriptions (not necesarilly as strict), so idk who the hell some other people are typing as LSI.

    Stratiyevskaya:

    In its social meaning, the logical program of the LSI is meant to be an alternative of any kind of the destabilization of his environment and surrounding structures: social, political, physical, biological, and so on. For this very reason, LSI's understanding of consistency, reasonableness, rationality is linked, first of all, to the organization of structural order (the "order of things") within the framework of some real, concretely existing system.

    Outside of the system the LSI never examines anything - such is the type of his intellect. Any phenomenon is viewed by him as part of certain existing system, that is regulated by certain patters and laws, and a certain logical order, understanding which the LSI considers himself obligated. Under no circumstances can the LSI be "by himself", "thinking only for himself", "himself only for himself" - this contradicts the program of his intellect too deeply.

    And for this very reason this sociotype is characterized by certain conformism and loyalty with respect to the existing regime, since he attempts to find an application for himself within the existing ruling social system.

    Due to the fact that representatives of this type consider themselves (and every other individual) to be a part of an existing system of relations, they consider any manifestation of individualism to be unacceptable for themselves, going beyond the framework of what is permissible, undermining and weakening of the social foundations, and introducing chaos and anarchy into the existing order of things. Therefore they see a special social significance in such activities as creation and introduction of instructions, procedures, social and juridical laws, establishment of standards and norms.

    Filatova:

    Summary of Functions:

    1. – Men of structure, which he attempts to find, incorporate himself in, follow, and perfect by the creation of rules, instructions and norms. He loves to collect things. Know how to work on large tasks, prefers to prioritize the most important thing and work in detail, then can move on.

    Professional Assessment:

    LSI is irreplaceable where the precise observance of rules, instructions, and technological norms is required. The ideal worker in manual labor, in the office, bookkeeping, traffic control service… Successfully realizes self in mathematics, programming and publishing work. Also in military service, where the precise army structure of subordination is established.

    Gulenko:

    Your strengths lie in being realistic, careful, capable of following through with any project or activity you take upon yourself. You are a responsible person who doesn't throw promises to the wind. You are characterized by a desire for order, discipline, clear rules and regulations. There is no doubt that you make a good administrator. You also advocate of the use of disciplinary measures against people who are not performing their duties.

    Sociotype:

    LSIs are often arduous producers of logical structures, models, principles, rules, and order. In general, their lifestyle is at least partly organized according to the rules they impute to the world, which are paramount to their experiences. They may typically tend to conceptualize the world around them in terms of fixed categories, and can exhibit well-developed preferences for one category of things over another. Often, LSIs' interpretation of the world is directed towards existing social structures; their rules and guidelines pertaining to the behavior and actions of others; if LIIs are stereotypically the abstract physicists, building systems and thought structures that have little to do with "real world" life, LSIs might likewise stereotypically represent hard-line military officers, making sure that everyone stays in line. LSIs can often integrate into their rule-based framework the conventions of the predominant social order, and they may be vocally critical or judgmental of those that fail to follow the real or imagined conventions ascribed to them. LSIs can also sometimes be sticklers for minutiae in rule-based systems; they may have little sympathy or leeway for those individuals who require exemptions (along the lines of "no, sir, this bus must leave exactly at 7:30").

    Te ignoring:
    LSIs can tend to have rigid, unchanging views that are not updated over time and not stringently evaluated in terms of their applicability in practice. They can sometimes adopt ideological viewpoints that pay only passing attention to, or are modestly unconcerned with the acquisition or application of new or updated factual information.



  17. #1937
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just overheard the home network on TV and it was some advertisement aimed at ESE/EIE (Ti suggestive) and they would constantly repeat in a cheery voice "food is better when you start from scratch!" (they were selling something to this end)--this is a Ti construction meant to influence a Se course of action, but its reductionist (it cuts to the Te "decision" and leaves out the active Te "analysis"). its a stand in for actual Te analysis but it covers Te's territory. in the same way SOPs regulations etc all do the same thing, they're not Te so much as a representation of Te. its how you learn science via Ti, but science itself is done via more (as discussed). its how you can "learn" business management via Ti, but never necessarily engage Te except as a byproduct of Ti (management "by the numbers" so to speak). its how Te can emerge as an unconscious byproduct of Ti (how you end up doing things without consciously focusing on it per se, but rather consciously focusing on executing your subjective understanding of how it should be done Se + Ti). its the same way Fe can unconsciously be produced as a byproduct of a Fi approach to relations, etc. Fi may not dynamically and consciously interact with the field, but produce the desired field on the basis of their "method" i.e. Fi ethical rules. the "method" is a "replacement" for dynamic engagement of the Xe function and is carried out on the basis of rules (Fi or Ti)

    deciding whether or not I should buy product x because "food really is better" or not when starting from scratch and considering cost, goals, taste, quality, time, etc is Te. in other words Te would critically evaluate the "truth" on the basis of some external criteria, whereas Ti would evaluate on the basis of whether or not it is a logically cogent proposition in light of the broader internal structure--it would likely be rejected if they said "processed food is better" this is just the contrapositive of that: if processed food is worse (commonly accepted Ti proposition), then it follows that "food is better when you start from scratch"--nevermind the other factors (Te)--the logic holds! must be true!--buy product

    my favorite was when my mother told me "donald trump is just trying to eliminate duplicate spending" in regards to his healthcare plan

    this is the flipside of how ESENIN cucks ZHUKOV, Z can easily manipulate their small minds into believing this trash
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-25-2017 at 09:31 PM.

  18. #1938
    c esi-se 6w7 spsx ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,833
    Mentioned
    912 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    right, what you're describing is really, as I see it, Te valuing with low dimensionality, higher dimensionality is when Te turns on itself and does the cost benefit analysis on itself, which is probably something vaguely incomprehensible for someone who doesn't do it... but thats the nature of every function, we all have the ability to do some things with greater sophistication than others. what that really makes me wonder is "what its like" to be high dimensional Fi in the same terms. perhaps such a thing is inexpressible and such a thing is the privilege of thinking (to describe itself in language). or perhaps its music/poetry
    Yeah, I can accept that I'm describing it from a 1d Te perspective. I know what I'm describing is very simplistic and its not like I see Te base types citing their sources after every sentence, so I understand that there's greater complexity. I think to some ppl that just makes me wrong but like, Te suggestive is a concept just like Te base is and its not that I'm not describing something legitimate or can't recognize what is useful to me and what's not when I see it. From my perspective as an Fi base "being able to figure things out (including how to do things) and explain them so other people understand" is more of a draw than "tells people what to do and how to be efficient," which is very niche and more about the what than the how.

  19. #1939
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    Yeah, I can accept that I'm describing it from a 1d Te perspective. I know what I'm describing is very simplistic and its not like I see Te base types citing their sources after every sentence, so I understand that there's greater complexity. I think to some ppl that just makes me wrong but like, Te suggestive is a concept just like Te base is and its not that I'm not describing something legitimate or can't recognize what is useful to me and what's not when I see it.
    yeah its like you know what you're looking for but you can't always come up with it on your own (needs help), thats pretty much suggestive in a nutshell. like you recognize good Te when you see it, but your own formulations are incomplete in a way you can't always put your finger on. I wonder what that looks like with Se--maybe just inconsistent implementation but admiration for almost anything well executed? <--see my die antwoord comments

    now Im thinking Se suggestive is like when ILI gets into hot water with comments like "well the Nazis were evil, but damn they were good at what they did" (bonus Fe polr with Se suggestive)

    From my perspective as an Fi base "being able to figure things out (including how to do things) and explain them so other people understand" is more of a draw than "tells people what to do and how to be efficient," which is very niche and more about the what than the how.
    totally, its the difference between ESTJ (semi dual) bossy but ok (and to a lesser extent ESTP, bossy and NOT ok [supervision]) and ENTJ (dual)

    or, lol, none of the above, ENTP (conflict)
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-25-2017 at 09:37 PM.

  20. #1940
    Resonare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    TIM
    Take a guess
    Posts
    559
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    Figure out what a fact is then get back to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    A fact is something that exists, that has happened or occurred.
    Pretty sure that is not how the Oxford dictionary defines it...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxford Dictionary
    Definition of "fact" in English:

    fact
    NOUN

    Thing that is known or proved to be true.

    Definition of "know" in English:


    know
    VERB


    Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
    Therefore, "fact" can also be defined as a thing that has been made aware of through observation, inquiry, or information, or proved to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    @Resonare fails to draw this distinction.
    Ok, let's break this strawman down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    The scientific method is a process in which facts are verified, but facts do not need to be verified for them to be facts by definition.
    I never stated otherwise. I stated that Te will use facts to form an explanation or some kind of understanding. These facts can be obtained through scientific evidence, tests and measurements is what I said.

    Nowhere did I claim these were the only ways of obtaining facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    Facts are observed by everyone, they aren't some abstract concept you only get in scientific journals.
    I never stated otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    They are learnable first-hand.
    I never stated otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    The worth in academic sources is in verifying facts to be 'true' and quantifying the phenomena.
    I. Never. Stated. Otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxford Dictionary
    Definition of straw man in English:

    straw man
    NOUN

    An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    I believe he is speaking through his own incompetence with the function as his version of Te being related to "inductive inferences", "creating explanations", "holistic formulas", has nothing to do with Te. It sounds more like he's trying to understand Te through Ti (and failing).
    That is not "my" version of Te. Did you not see that it's quoted directly from Jung?

    In fact, get back to me once you're able to define "conception" because it's looking like you don't know what it is.

  21. #1941
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    honestly resonare youre giving me the vibe that it would be useless to try and productively engage you (I pick this up from a specific set of forums posters, singularity is like this too)

    but don't mistake making it not worth it to try as you somehow being right (this is like Fe/Se bullying)

  22. #1942
    c esi-se 6w7 spsx ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,833
    Mentioned
    912 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Inductive inference" and "creating explanations" doesn't sound so bad to me, tho I think they're broad to be attributed to a single element. I'm confused by the "holistic formula" thing.

  23. #1943
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,961
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    You guys are still talking about facts?
    Geez, haha.
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  24. #1944
    Resonare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    TIM
    Take a guess
    Posts
    559
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    "Inductive inference" and "creating explanations" doesn't sound so bad to me, tho I think they're broad to be attributed to a single element. I'm confused by the "holistic formula" thing.
    It's more to do with what it's based off of. For example...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    In accordance with his definition, we must picture a man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.
    sounds similar to Ti except the basis of the "formula" is objective etc.

  25. #1945
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    its more like xeno's paradox where you just defined it into existence. motion is possible and in the same way mutual understanding is possible, socionics tends to elucidate the ways in which people misunderstand eachother but its more like information is a palindrome and understanding how it is metabolized is the ladder with which one can begin to see it from the other angle (a kind of transcendental deduction). mutual understanding is a demonstrable fact as much as motion so these Ti constructs that peolpe find convincing for even one second I find amusing because its so silly

    understanding can be subjective and mutually understood at the same time. intersubjectivity occurs all the time, and it while it is not mutually identical from the point of view of the subjects it is nevetheless isomorphic

    its how strat can be compatible with gulenko. while one can point out inconsistencies between them, those are things that in principle can be smoothed over. it is Fi and Ti interpretations of the same phenomena, both are still in process so there are inconsistencies even controlling for differences between Fi and Ti but those are specific instances of mistakes rooted in human error, not substantive irreconcilable difference as a matter of structure. there is no fundamental incompatibility between the two ways of looking at things, rather they are separate levels of analysis that are complimentary, and mutually understandable. if theres anything exclusive to individual types in that sense its their creative potential to originate the expressions, but we have role functions for a reason

    furthermore there will always be someone that can deny this or that facet of knowledge in virtue of their capacity for free will, but that doesn't make transmission of understanding in principle somehow permanently out of reach, it just means you can't force anything on anyone, which is kind of what Ti is in the business of doing--it often does take on the form of intellectual violence, which is precisely what many post modern philosophers pointed out as a feature of modern discourse

    it is a Ti presupposition though that without such force mutual understanding is somehow impossible. I do think that presupposition along with Ti valuing does contribute to what I perceive as a fascist streak in alpha and beta which is what post modernism, I believe, was largely taking aim at

    the genius of psychology, especially "intuitive" (in the socionics sense) psychology, i.e.: analytic or jungian psychology is that it represents a breakthrough in a post-enlightenment age where we unified for first time both science and religious narratives (i.e.:ethics) under one common framework in terms both types can understand without diminishing one or the other. contemporary academic psychology has in that sense taken a step back when it retreats into reductionist Ti modes of understanding like neuroscience, except I don't mean to say its worthless because its a step back but its more like it focuses exclusively on one subordinate level of analysis: science. however we still have a ton of unknown territory in that realm so progress on that front is still valuable at contributing to the higher level from the bottom up (and of course for its own sake, i.e. medical advances etc).

    what makes socionics uniquely compelling to me, is I always understood religion and science were just different modes of understanding the same thing in equally valid terms but with different goals implied, but both which are necessary to the human condition. science always struck me as half a man, as did "primitive" narratives such as the earth being made in 6 days: neither by itself seemed "true" to me... it is precisely for this reason that intersubjective understanding is possible because only one side is not good enough for those that have a sense of something greater and its that sense that allows one to bridge the gap. perhaps not everyone is able or willing to pursue that, but that is saying nothing more than some people will never understand eachother, but not that no one can possibly understand eachother under socionics (i.e.: it does not necessarily entail a contradiction--is not self refuting in the sense you portray it as)

    jung breaks it down very simply: any idea has logical content and affective content, logical content is colloquially considered objective because it is stripped of its affective content and therefore more easily transmitted via syntax as a logical representation or "proposition." but moreso than that within the realm of logic and ethics you can view it from either side, which is the difference between Ti/Te and Fi/Fe. so once you get the complete picture then you're in a position to understand other types, and misunderstandings result from projections which is essentially viewing whatever logical or ethical propositions someone is putting out "from the wrong side" i.e. what Fe would mean if it were saying what the Fi person is saying just now. This overall picture, to me, is intuition + Te, but maybe that's just my projection. perhaps it is, and projections are inevitable, but my overall point here is, that a sufficiently advanced concept like socionics because of its intuitive content is such that even if you're projecting it is still valid in that it can be viewed from multiple angles and retain its integrity. which is what I would define as "gospel"-- its imperfect, of course, but its getting closer. to me my understanding of the bible is that God made it such that viewed by anyone it had a valid message for them and that's what made it perfect. i think that's because its perfect intuition in a pre-scientific world (in fact its hard to imagine science without christianity first). to me pure intuition is in some sense the sense of the unity between logic and feeling--its implications back and forth--and socionics and jungian psychology is a very intuitive theory--and intuition is what bridges Ti and Fi and what makes intersubjectivity possible (and is open to anyone, not just N egos or whatever)

    i.e.: logos exists
    Pop quiz: what information elements are present in the above text?

    Hint: it's not

  26. #1946
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Pop quiz: what information elements are present in the above text?

    Hint: it's not

  27. #1947
    AbZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Midwestern U.S.
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    laws SOPs and regs are all codified in Ti form but they primarily describe a Te method but its the broader assessment where Ti meets Te that says something like "this way to do it (as recorded) is most effective" that is Te and that quote was in the context of low D or unsophisticated Te, so you're right they're not Te in the productive sense of the word, or in their strict linguistic formulation (i.e.: as if-then chain on paper). a lot of what you're describing is the Ti "caricactureness" of low Te, which is true, you're right, but that whole quote was in the context of me making a Te "caricature" of Ti, so it was more about turnabout than making a totally fair and comprehensive account of Te
    Yeah I don't necessarily disagree that Te would be concerned with finding the best method, I just disagreed with the last statement he made, particularly the regulations and laws part of it. I see Te more as an input-output function and since it's logical it's concerned with objective output (something that can be measured or is quantifiable to some degree). I think that's why Te is associated with business and money since money is an objective output of the actions you take to get that money. So yeah Te is responsible for trying to streamline processes. But I think when you start getting into rules, organization, or other forms of classification then the function being used is Ti.

  28. #1948
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I absolutely agree and that Fi/Ni and Ni/Fi can look very close. in fact Nardi says on brain scans gamma introverts are the most isomorphic out of any of the 16 types

    its to the point where I don't think/feel (either on Te or Fi grounds--ha!) it matters and I like "gamma introvert." some of the ESI label is me just being provocative because I like the point we're making


    ESI's are way way smarter than people give them credit for
    ILI and ESI seem remarkably similar, in that an artistic ILI or a philosophical ESI are indistinguishable from one another. I think it points to deeper layers of consciousness being at work.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  29. #1949
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,961
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Envisioner View Post
    ILI and ESI seem remarkably similar, in that an artistic ILI or a philosophical ESI are indistinguishable from one another. I think it points to deeper layers of consciousness being at work.
    Or it could just mean that the artistic ILI uses Fi more, the philosophical ESI uses Ni more, and that is why there is the overlap.
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  30. #1950
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Or it could just mean that the artistic ILI uses Fi more, the philosophical ESI uses Ni more, and that is why there is the overlap.
    You can look at it that way. You can also look beyond the functions. The functions are only models that represent areas of interplay between the conscious and subconscious. In theory we use all functions and the way we each use them point to what is going on below the surface. They are merely tools to get at the meat. Socionics is one system, one approach.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  31. #1951
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,961
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default Ti rant

    Quote Originally Posted by Envisioner View Post
    You can look at it that way. You can also look beyond the functions. The functions are only models that represent areas of interplay between the conscious and subconscious. In theory we use all functions and the way we each use them point to what is going on below the surface. They are merely tools to get at the meat. Socionics is one system, one approach.
    This is probably just the Ti-valuing purist in me, but I am wondering: Why not just come up with a new system or view humanity and so forth divorced from this internally consistent and working system (or divorced from any systems for that manner). So, instead of saying ESIs and ILIs are "more than their types" (which on a strictly type-based level they are not), why not just philosophize about how people are more than meets the eye, or that perhaps one should consider other systems or other ideas when trying to evaluate the human experience etc etc besides Socionics.

    Basically, I see you trying to deconstruct Socionics, which ultimately renders it a useless system. When certain principles in a working system are being deconstructed, the system falls apart. That is why I find it more valuable to let the integrity of an internally sound and consistent system alone; you can criticize it for being incorrect as a whole, and you can disregard systems altogether, but I don't see the point in breaking apart something that is internally working. Having said all that, it's true that people can (seemingly) act outside the scope of their type, but so far I have not come across a case where in some way or another those discrepancies couldn't be resolved by taking into account subtype, enneagram, and just their life experience/history etc.
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  32. #1952
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,806
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Envisioner View Post
    ILI and ESI seem remarkably similar, in that an artistic ILI or a philosophical ESI are indistinguishable from one another. I think it points to deeper layers of consciousness being at work.
    No way, just look at their house a philosophical ESI will still have a spotless cabinet, whereas an ILI....(I'm half joking but saying that they are indistinguishable is just wrong, their strong functions are completely different, their everyday life will look different!)
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  33. #1953
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    This is probably just the Ti-valuing purist in me, but I am wondering: Why not just come up with a new system or view humanity and so forth divorced from this internally consistent and working system (or divorced from any systems for that manner). So, instead of saying ESIs and ILIs are "more than their types" (which on a strictly type-based level they are not), why not just philosophize about how people are more than meets the eye, or that perhaps one should consider other systems or other ideas when trying to evaluate the human experience etc etc besides Socionics.

    Basically, I see you trying to deconstruct Socionics, which ultimately renders it a useless system. When certain principles in a working system are being deconstructed, the system falls apart. That is why I find it more valuable to let the integrity of an internally sound and consistent system alone; you can criticize it for being incorrect as a whole, and you can disregard systems altogether, but I don't see the point in breaking apart something that is internally working. Having said all that, it's true that people can (seemingly) act outside the scope of their type, but so far I have not come across a case where in some way or another those discrepancies couldn't be resolved by taking into account subtype, enneagram, and just their life experience/history etc.
    But it's fun.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  34. #1954
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,961
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Envisioner View Post
    But it's fun.
    Haha, fair enough.
    I'll just try to see it as that. You having fun, and that's it.
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  35. #1955
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All of this is off-topic entirely and I considered not posting anything, but might as well address it.

    Quote Originally Posted by darya View Post
    i'm confused as well since LSI's in general love rules, order and regulations. They are usually e6 or e1 and often take care that procedures and regulations are being followed correctly. Even one of the LSI subtypes is named Controller . The people I type as LSI are similar as these descriptions (not necesarilly as strict), so idk who the hell some other people are typing as LSI.
    Yes, you're confused. LSIs don't love rules and regulations. Order is something entirely different. A law or a regulation tells you what to do and how to do it. This is why it falls under Te. The kind of "rules" that fall under Ti are more along the lines of organization and categorization. This belongs in this category, it doesn't belong in that one. This fits with this and that, but not with that.

    This can be very individual as well since everyone will have their own idea of how to sort things, which criteria to choose. For instance - plants and animals and deciding which family, genus, species something is - this is highly contested all the time. And changes all the time according to new criteria, where whole branches of phylogenetic trees have been move or changed, especially now that DNA rather than physical similarities is being taken into account more and more for the divisions. Anyway, the sorting of things into categories like that is Ti. It's about how things relate to each other. How things fit together. What belongs where and with what. The only "rules" this follows are the criteria used in the sorting.

    Quote Originally Posted by darya
    Stratiyevskaya:

    In its social meaning, [B]the logical program of the LSI is meant to be an alternative of any kind of the destabilization of his environment and surrounding structures: social, political, physical, biological, and so on. For this very reason, LSI's understanding of consistency, reasonableness, rationality is linked, first of all, to the organization of structural order (the "order of things") within the framework of some real, concretely existing system.
    Yes, the structure and the consistency, putting things into an order (in other words, organizing) - how things fit together - like I described with the categorization. None of this has anything to do with how you must do something. It's not about laws or regulations. Laws, regulations and procedure have nothing to do with structure, and everything to do with saying how things must be done. Ti isn't about how you do something, or following regulations - it's about organization, fitting things together to understand them.

    Quote Originally Posted by darya
    Outside of the system the LSI never examines anything - such is the type of his intellect. Any phenomenon is viewed by him as part of certain existing system, that is regulated by certain patters and laws, and a certain logical order, understanding which the LSI considers himself obligated. Under no circumstances can the LSI be "by himself", "thinking only for himself", "himself only for himself" - this contradicts the program of his intellect too deeply.

    And for this very reason this sociotype is characterized by certain conformism and loyalty with respect to the existing regime, since he attempts to find an application for himself within the existing ruling social system.


    Due to the fact that representatives of this type consider themselves (and every other individual) to be a part of an existing system of relations, they consider any manifestation of individualism to be unacceptable for themselves, going beyond the framework of what is permissible, undermining and weakening of the social foundations, and introducing chaos and anarchy into the existing order of things. Therefore they see a special social significance in such activities as creation and introduction of instructions, procedures, social and juridical laws, establishment of standards and norms.
    strat seems to think all betas are social instinct. She misses a lot for this reason. The small grain of truth in this though, has to do with loyalty to a system and application within it, but that is not about following regulations. It's about making a system work and how they fit into that system.

    Quote Originally Posted by darya
    Filatova:

    Summary of Functions:

    1. – Men of structure, which he attempts to find, incorporate himself in, follow, and perfect by the creation of rules, instructions and norms. He loves to collect things. Know how to work on large tasks, prefers to prioritize the most important thing and work in detail, then can move on.
    Yes, again what I was describing - structure and organization. Prioritization also is part of organizing information or objects. Categories, and the "rules" for those categories such as "All blue objects go here and all orange objects go there" and "These are the most important, these are the least" not laws or rules such as "You must file this paper and only park on this side of the street" or "Everyone has to wear a seatbelt." These are two different kinds of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by darya
    Professional Assessment:

    LSI is irreplaceable where the precise observance of rules, instructions, and technological norms is required. The ideal worker in manual labor, in the office, bookkeeping, traffic control service… Successfully realizes self in mathematics, programming and publishing work. Also in military service, where the precise army structure of subordination is established.
    Absolutely. This is all about the organization of information. Programming rules for instance are absolutely not the same thing as regulations and laws. Keeping track of accounting and having all of that information in order, again follows a kind of rule but it's something entirely different from the laws and regulations I was referring to. Categorizing, prioritizing, organizing, sorting, labeling -- those are the kinds of "rules" being discussed here once again. The military part is as mentioned earlier about finding a place within a system - some place where they belong and know how they belong.

    I'm sure you can see by now what exactly is being referred to in every quote, and it's about structure and a system (of their own) and how things fit within that system. Not all will find the same things or same kind of system important, won't prioritize the same things or form the same categories Again categorization, sorting, organizing, how things work together, fit together, so on and so forth. And this is their own system, or one they adopt as their own in some cases, and it's not a system the way bureacracy is a system - instead it's about how one thing fits with or is connected to another thing. Hierarchy(Which is another way of saying Prioritization), Categories, Connections. It all boils down to understanding and making sense of things.

    You can think about the rules of Algebra as more like Ti, where the rules of physics are more like Te. (Hopefully that comparison makes sense and I didn't just leave an opening for misunderstanding)

  36. #1956
    Milo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    443
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    I don't think I'll be able to do much better. A fact is something that exists, that has happened or occurred. The scientific method is a process in which facts are verified, but facts do not need to be verified for them to be facts by definition. Facts are observed by everyone, they aren't some abstract concept you only get in scientific journals. They are learnable first-hand. The worth in academic sources is in verifying facts to be 'true' and quantifying the phenomena. @Resonare fails to draw this distinction. I believe he is speaking through his own incompetence with the function as his version of Te being related to "inductive inferences", "creating explanations", "holistic formulas", has nothing to do with Te. It sounds more like he's trying to understand Te through Ti (and failing).
    Me talking a shower this morning must be fiction then, since "everyone" wasn't present to observe it same with every other personal and private experience.

  37. #1957
    darya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 3w4 sx
    Posts
    2,833
    Mentioned
    256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    All of this is off-topic entirely and I considered not posting anything, but might as well address it.



    Yes, you're confused. LSIs don't love rules and regulations. Order is something entirely different. A law or a regulation tells you what to do and how to do it. This is why it falls under Te. The kind of "rules" that fall under Ti are more along the lines of organization and categorization. This belongs in this category, it doesn't belong in that one. This fits with this and that, but not with that.

    This can be very individual as well since everyone will have their own idea of how to sort things, which criteria to choose. For instance - plants and animals and deciding which family, genus, species something is - this is highly contested all the time. And changes all the time according to new criteria, where whole branches of phylogenetic trees have been move or changed, especially now that DNA rather than physical similarities is being taken into account more and more for the divisions. Anyway, the sorting of things into categories like that is Ti. It's about how things relate to each other. How things fit together. What belongs where and with what. The only "rules" this follows are the criteria used in the sorting.



    Yes, the structure and the consistency, putting things into an order (in other words, organizing) - how things fit together - like I described with the categorization. None of this has anything to do with how you must do something. It's not about laws or regulations. Laws, regulations and procedure have nothing to do with structure, and everything to do with saying how things must be done. Ti isn't about how you do something, or following regulations - it's about organization, fitting things together to understand them.



    strat seems to think all betas are social instinct. She misses a lot for this reason. The small grain of truth in this though, has to do with loyalty to a system and application within it, but that is not about following regulations. It's about making a system work and how they fit into that system.



    Yes, again what I was describing - structure and organization. Prioritization also is part of organizing information or objects. Categories, and the "rules" for those categories such as "All blue objects go here and all orange objects go there" and "These are the most important, these are the least" not laws or rules such as "You must file this paper and only park on this side of the street" or "Everyone has to wear a seatbelt." These are two different kinds of things.



    Absolutely. This is all about the organization of information. Programming rules for instance are absolutely not the same thing as regulations and laws. Keeping track of accounting and having all of that information in order, again follows a kind of rule but it's something entirely different from the laws and regulations I was referring to. Categorizing, prioritizing, organizing, sorting, labeling -- those are the kinds of "rules" being discussed here once again. The military part is as mentioned earlier about finding a place within a system - some place where they belong and know how they belong.

    I'm sure you can see by now what exactly is being referred to in every quote, and it's about structure and a system (of their own) and how things fit within that system. Not all will find the same things or same kind of system important, won't prioritize the same things or form the same categories Again categorization, sorting, organizing, how things work together, fit together, so on and so forth. And this is their own system, or one they adopt as their own in some cases, and it's not a system the way bureacracy is a system - instead it's about how one thing fits with or is connected to another thing. Hierarchy(Which is another way of saying Prioritization), Categories, Connections. It all boils down to understanding and making sense of things.

    You can think about the rules of Algebra as more like Ti, where the rules of physics are more like Te. (Hopefully that comparison makes sense and I didn't just leave an opening for misunderstanding)
    Thanks, you're really helpful at explaining this, I get it now . Frankly I can often miss such logical nuances - i mixed apples and oranges. My dad is LSI 6w5 (usually counterphobic, pretty rebellious), so I have a life-long exposure to such specimen, and your explanations make total sense. There's also some good information about this in the other "LSI and rules" thread.

  38. #1958
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darya View Post
    Thanks, you're really helpful at explaining this, I get it now . Frankly I can often miss such logical nuances - i mixed apples and oranges. My dad is LSI 6w5 (usually counterphobic, pretty rebellious), so I have a life-long exposure to such specimen, and your explanations make total sense. There's also some good information about this in the other "LSI and rules" thread.
    I typed my mom LSI because it was like the descriptions were written about her. Squark explained it so well.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  39. #1959

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slade View Post
    Everything's apophenia when Ni's your PoLR.
    Actually, I never said everything is apophenia. Just your typing patterns.


    PS: Been MIA until now but I couldn't pass this one up.

  40. #1960
    Slade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Actually, I never said everything is apophenia. Just your typing patterns.


    PS: Been MIA until now but I couldn't pass this one up.
    You misunderstood the joke just like you misunderstand everything else. Why even reply to anything if half the time you don't get what the other person is saying.
    Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type

Posting Permissions

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