Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: The functionís strength is determined by the volume of information which it can process.

  1. #1

    Default The functionís strength is determined by the volume of information which it can process.

    "The function’s strength is determined by the volume of information which it can process."

    according to an article on http://en.socionics.ru/

    "In socionic language it will look the following way: for weak functions we have channels of lesser capacity that is why our weak functions process less information that the strong ones. How is their weakness manifested? Information which is not full is not usually true enough. Making decisions connected with the spheres of processing by weak functions we more often make mistakes and have to turn to people for help and advice. There is nothing bad or humiliating in that for us, we, in our turn, can give advice from our strong functions. "



    "The volume of information processed by strong functions is enough for a person’s own needs and also for transferring it to other people and society. While weak functions process relatively small volume of information. The quality of the final product of weak functions is lower. Such product can rarely interest the people around for there are always people in society with the same functions in strong positions."

    Strong functions usually manifest themselves in a very easy and natural way, it just happens, that’s all. They are not for “showing off”, their owner is just confident in them. And on a weak function, even well worked at, we can see certain tension, certain stiffness, we can often come across excuses here.

    Discuss.
    Last edited by ConcreteButterfly; 03-10-2015 at 06:15 AM.

  2. #2
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Iím wondering, is it possible for a personís IM to be partially broken? Like, maybe their mobilizing Te doesnít work fully? I guess that'd be related to mental retardation or something like that...

    ^^Iím still wondering if this is at all possible or related to Socionics? If so, maybe we could learn to develop some effective therapies for treating people with mental retardation and similar problems?

  3. #3
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Inert and contact

    Inert functions (1, 4, 6, 7) are those that do not integrate information from the environment; thus, the strength of these functions remain the way they are. A person does not seek guidance in these areas as they comprise the core of their natural strengths and weaknesses.

    Inert functions 1 and 4 are a part of the mental ring; these are essentially one's most confident strengths (base function) and debilitating weaknesses (point of least resistance). It is for this reason that strong judgments about these aspects of reality are inadvertently made.

    Inert functions 6 and 7 are in the vital ring of a person's psyche. An individual is hardly aware of how these functions are used. The mobilizing function is inert since its primary mechanism is to mobilize one's creative function into action. Thus one's ability to use it does not become much stronger throughout life. The ignoring function is inert because it is part of a person's natural strength, just like the base function. Conscious information is limited here in favor of the leading function.

    Contact functions (2, 3, 5, 8) are essentially how we touch upon the environment; they adapt and integrate new experiences from the environment. These are capable of being improved over time (through ability or simply new understandings).

    Contact functions 2 and 3 are in the mental ring. The creative function produces new information out of what is accepted by the base function. This is literally how we uniquely 'make contact' with the world. This has potential to grow stronger as a conscious element since it's the Ego's connection to reality. In the role function, however, information from the environment is weakly accepted situationally, and is subdued since it opposes the base function's approach. Although it cannot truly grow in strength, where it does grow is within the individual's subjective understanding of that aspect of reality.

    Contact functions 5 and 8 are in the vital ring and strive to unconsciously make contact with the environment. This is indefinitely true of the suggestive function. Since it complements the base function, people unknowingly seek information related to it from the environment to strengthen its ability. It is theoretically the only way one can improve on their leading function. The demonstrative function makes contact with one's environment very unconsciously; it acts with the conscious leading function to produce one's unique worldview, being just as strong as the base function.
    Also, I thought this was really interesting.

  4. #4
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've wonder if this is merely a normative case and not always true. Is there a case where preference and strength doesn't align.

  5. #5
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,131
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Practice makes perfect.

    what I find a little interesting is that the creative subtypes can use their creatives ostensibly moreso than their base, and yet the base will still be 4D and the creative will be 3D. That one extra dimension being a bit of esoteric reliability in seeing how that element unfolds given variables.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

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

  6. #6
    Contra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    1,405
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    what I find a little interesting is that the creative subtypes can use their creatives ostensibly moreso than their base, and yet the base will still be 4D and the creative will be 3D. That one extra dimension being a bit of esoteric reliability in seeing how that element unfolds given variables.
    Just wondering, where did you find that? I'd be interested to read more on that considering I've generally thought of myself as Creative subtype, and I find that to be the case.
    Last edited by Contra; 03-14-2015 at 06:00 AM.

  7. #7
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes Ne as an example processes new ideas stream of new encounters new esoteric experiences some may or may not be useful practical or pragmatic

  8. #8
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,897
    Mentioned
    734 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default


    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  9. #9

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4
    Is there a case where preference and strength doesn't align.
    I think the concept of creative/base subtypes is a subtle place and perhaps good to explore this question, like e.g. ILE-Ti/LII-Ne.

    If this energy type stuff has something to it, some of the standard ways of distinguishing such subtypes might actually be subsumed in energy-typology. The reason I think this is interesting is it then narrows you down to (in a very pure way) asking what is the distinction between the main program being logic versus intuition -- meaning what is the aim of logical information, and what is the aim of intuitive information.

    The idea that logic types are just more rigid or something might help more in the base subtypes case - whereas in the creative subtypes case, it can be more subtle.

    One example of a theoretical difference is the process/result stuff, of course, which goes beyond "strength" and "weakness".

  10. #10
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,131
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Contra View Post
    Just wondering, where did you find that? I'd be interested to read more on that considering I've generally thought of myself as Creative subtype, and I find that to be the case.
    What part 4D & 3D?
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

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

  11. #11
    dugga dugga dun Narc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    Ni-ENTj 8w9 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,288
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    What part 4D & 3D?
    Hah. We just got our first practical example of this idea.

  12. #12
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,131
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Narc View Post
    Hah. We just got our first practical example of this idea.
    I.... I dont understand.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

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

  13. #13
    Contra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    1,405
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    What part 4D & 3D?
    Well I meant this part:
    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    what I find a little interesting is that the creative subtypes can use their creatives ostensibly moreso than their base, and yet the base will still be 4D and the creative will be 3D.
    The fact that certain subtypes use their creative function more than their base despite strength differences is something I suppose I already knew was possible, but what I'm more interested in is the possibility of the creative functions predominance over the base. I think that's how it is for me, in a sense (perhaps I'm underestimating how it is for all LIEs though). I was just interested if you got that from a specific source so I could get more info on it.

    I'm also interested in exactly what you mean by this:
    That one extra dimension being a bit of esoteric reliability in seeing how that element unfolds given variables.

  14. #14
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What are Id and super id functions? These are unconscious and often running on auto pilot in the back ground, would the functions strength still be determined by the volume of information?
    "Traffic lights and loneliness. Paper cans and tape cassettes. When the world feels like this. Static shocks and bitterness."

  15. #15
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,897
    Mentioned
    734 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly View Post
    "The function’s strength is determined by the volume of information which it can process."

    according to an article on http://en.socionics.ru/

    "In socionic language it will look the following way: for weak functions we have channels of lesser capacity that is why our weak functions process less information that the strong ones. How is their weakness manifested? Information which is not full is not usually true enough. Making decisions connected with the spheres of processing by weak functions we more often make mistakes and have to turn to people for help and advice. There is nothing bad or humiliating in that for us, we, in our turn, can give advice from our strong functions. "

    "The volume of information processed by strong functions is enough for a person’s own needs and also for transferring it to other people and society. While weak functions process relatively small volume of information. The quality of the final product of weak functions is lower. Such product can rarely interest the people around for there are always people in society with the same functions in strong positions."

    Strong functions usually manifest themselves in a very easy and natural way, it just happens, that’s all. They are not for “showing off”, their owner is just confident in them. And on a weak function, even well worked at, we can see certain tension, certain stiffness, we can often come across excuses here.

    Discuss.
    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    I think the concept of creative/base subtypes is a subtle place and perhaps good to explore this question, like e.g. ILE-Ti/LII-Ne.

    If this energy type stuff has something to it, some of the standard ways of distinguishing such subtypes might actually be subsumed in energy-typology. The reason I think this is interesting is it then narrows you down to (in a very pure way) asking what is the distinction between the main program being logic versus intuition -- meaning what is the aim of logical information, and what is the aim of intuitive information.

    The idea that logic types are just more rigid or something might help more in the base subtypes case - whereas in the creative subtypes case, it can be more subtle.

    One example of a theoretical difference is the process/result stuff, of course, which goes beyond "strength" and "weakness".
    I feel weird doing this but I want to say something here, while not offending anyone. I am not retyping you. Both of you seem to be intelligent, theoretical thinkers but sometimes I have trouble getting on the same wavelength, as you, when reading your posts.

    In general I find most LII, some ILE and some ILI to write in such a way that I have to decipher their own secret language, over a period of time, to comprehend what they are really getting at. I suppose this shows that I have a preference for some kind of "plain language. It took me awhile to get used to ConcreteButterfly's writing style but I can understand it pretty well now.

    I am still finding it difficult to understand many of Chemicals' writings but if I put some effort into it I might be able to grasp it better. This might not be the right thread to post this but it has been on my mind. I don't have a problem understanding @LIIbrarian at all so I am wondering if this is even a Logical/Intuitive thing. I do get a sense of deciphering with some of the other LII here like @Within but I feel like he is a poster that I read from another perspective. I think @ClownsandEntropy has posted some things I have had to triple read in the past but he does not seem to post as many theories. @mu4 it is hit or miss, for me, depending on the subject.

    Anyway just putting it out there since I do not know what either of you self-type as. This was kind of all sparked today when I realized how easy it was for me to understand and assimilate information on this particular site I have rediscovered. The writer(s) definitely speaks my language. :/

    FTR: I didn't find these two posts that hard to understand but I am talking about the more theoretical postings that have large amounts of info in them.

    Where is the language barrier here?

    It could be something as simple as you guys giving large amounts of information in posts, (sometimes) in socionics terms, that I am unfamiliar with but there seems to be more to it. Like I feel that there should be some kind of intersection of intuition where we meet. Maybe that is what happens when I get the feeling of "I know what you are expressing but I can't put it into my own words."

    Edit: Also want to add that I probably should get more familiar with socionics terms if I want to follow these types of discussions so it's not you, it's me.
    Last edited by Aylen; 03-15-2015 at 09:03 PM.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  16. #16
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    I feel weird doing this but I want to say something here, while not offending anyone. I am not retyping you. Both of you seem to be intelligent, theoretical thinkers but sometimes I have trouble getting on the same wavelength, as you, when reading your posts.

    In general I find most LII, some ILE and some ILI to write in such a way that I have to decipher their own secret language, over a period of time, to comprehend what they are really getting at. I suppose this shows that I have a preference for some kind of "plain language. It took me awhile to get used to ConcreteButterfly's writing style but I can understand it pretty well now.

    I am still finding it difficult to understand many of Chemicals' writings but if I put some effort into it I might be able to grasp it better. This might not be the right thread to post this but it has been on my mind. I don't have a problem understanding @LIIbrarian at all so I am wondering if this is even a Logical/Intuitive thing. I do get a sense of deciphering with some of the other LII here like @Within but I feel like he is a poster that I read from another perspective. I think @ClownsandEntropy has posted some things I have had to triple read in the past but he does not seem to post as many theories. @mu4 it is hit or miss, for me, depending on the subject.

    Anyway just putting it out there since I do not know what either of you self-type as. This was kind of all sparked today when I realized how easy it was for me to understand and assimilate information on this particular site I have rediscovered. The writer(s) definitely speaks my language. :/

    FTR: I didn't find these two posts that hard to understand but I am talking about the more theoretical postings that have large amounts of info in them.

    Where is the language barrier here?

    It could be something as simple as you guys giving large amounts of information in posts, (sometimes) in socionics terms, that I am unfamiliar with but there seems to be more to it. Like I feel that there should be some kind of intersection of intuition where we meet. Maybe that is what happens when I get the feeling of "I know what you are expressing but I can't put it into my own words."

    Edit: Also want to add that I probably should get more familiar with socionics terms if I want to follow these types of discussions so it's not you, it's me.

    Interesting. I find that too, that some people of the same type as me I understand immediately what they're saying and some I really have to work hard at it to figure out what they really mean. I try hard to make myself clear and straightforward. What's the point of posting ideas about things if no one is going to understand you. I too find that the writing of @ConcreteButterfly is a little harder for me to decipher than some of the other LIIs. @chemical is a little easier for me and @ClownsandEntropy I seem to understand right away. @Megane too. @mu4 is hit or miss, I agree.

    I'm thinking of some of the LIIs that posted here long ago. @Tcaud and @Labster I really had to struggle sometimes getting through their messages.

    Regarding people of other types, I generally find Ne writing easier than Ni writing style as a whole.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  17. #17
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,897
    Mentioned
    734 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LIIbrarian View Post
    Regarding people of other types, I generally find Ne writing easier than Ni writing style as a whole.
    I wouldn't swear to this but I think I get tripped up with Te and Ti mostly. It is like yeah I can kind of dismiss Te (if I don't believe it) but Ti will burrow into my brain until I have to find an outlet.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  18. #18

    Default

    Heh it's pretty funny people here assume I'm a thinker, I'm actually IEE. Maybe I should put that in my profile. And I agree with you Aylen, some of the posts here ARE difficult to understand, I confuse myself even, sometimes I read some past things I've written and wonder where the fuck I got them. So I guess.. At least your not alone? For eg Some of Mu4's posts have gone way over my head.

    I used to be waaaaay more of a typical IEE when I was little. Nowadays I hold it back, I feel like I'm disturbing people and I hate that. Also my interest in Socionics started because I met my dual and wanted to know what was going on!

  19. #19

    Default

    Btw Aylen, I didn't write was was in the original post, that's direct from Http://en.socionics.ru (hence the quotes)

  20. #20

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen
    Where is the language barrier here?
    Just to stab at your question, I think one major part of this puzzle is actually that some posters have more of their own agendas in terms of what they want to analyze about the theory, and I suspect it is in general (not just for you, but for anyone) harder to follow them: because their conceptualizations are somewhat more specific to issues they are working out.

    I think that might be what is in common between me, and some of the other posters you had trouble with. I get the sense @mu4's a little like me on this point...he lives in his world and has quite a particular way of conceptualizing things. It's a common thing among people seeking meaning in theory -- we've really seen the power of certain ideas that have influenced us, and to make our understanding of the theory as meaningful as possible, we build the edifice in very particular/intricate ways -- ways appealing to ideas we've found meaningful.

    Specific to me is probably that my style's quite heavy with introverted logic, but I get the sense that's only one of the things going on, because you also had some level of problem with posters who identify as not XLE or LXI.

    Other issues likely to be more specific with my style: a) I tend towards really studying the theory just to play with the ideas and am very detached from potential applications..b) my writing tends to be more about capturing all angles of something than about making any single point. I.e. analyzing how we must analyze something.

  21. #21
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,897
    Mentioned
    734 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Just to stab at your question, I think one major part of this puzzle is actually that some posters have more of their own agendas in terms of what they want to analyze about the theory, and I suspect it is in general (not just for you, but for anyone) harder to follow them: because their conceptualizations are somewhat more specific to issues they are working out.

    I think that might be what is in common between me, and some of the other posters you had trouble with. I get the sense @mu4's a little like me on this point...he lives in his world and has quite a particular way of conceptualizing things. It's a common thing among people seeking meaning in theory -- we've really seen the power of certain ideas that have influenced us, and to make our understanding of the theory as meaningful as possible, we build the edifice in very particular/intricate ways -- ways appealing to ideas we've found meaningful.

    Specific to me is probably that my style's quite heavy with introverted logic, but I get the sense that's only one of the things going on, because you also had some level of problem with posters who identify as not XLE or LXI.

    Other issues likely to be more specific with my style: a) I tend towards really studying the theory just to play with the ideas and am very detached from potential applications..b) my writing tends to be more about capturing all angles of something than about making any single point. I.e. analyzing how we must analyze something.
    Thanks, this was actually easy to understand. I came to the same conclusion, while discussing this with a friend last night. Introverted logic activates something inside me that makes me want to comprehend the information. It is hard to explain what I mean but it is something I like to do because I feel like I have accomplished something amazing when I work with Ti. Heavy Ti is, well, heavy, but I like the challenge.

    Te does not feel challenging in the same way. Like I have told people before that the Te is just plain wrong, and I am right, kind of thing. hahah Mostly with friends. I try to be more more respectful toward Te valuers out in the real world since it can lead to pointless arguments and bad feelings. It didn't go over well with some teachers.

    Ti is actually harder to argue against than Te because it can have a more personal slant to it for each user. I want to learn something from Ti users and sometimes I am disappointed if they don't put any effort into explaining something to me that I really want to understand. I get the feeling that they understand it well but feel no desire to teach it. That leads to me going off and searching for information on my own, coming to my own realizations, then coming back and sharing my own version of Ti with them. At times that is helpful because it shows I am really interested in what they have to say. I don't view my interests as novelty. I will explore some things until I tear them down or make them part of a pretty solid belief system.

    Some issues with other posters (in the past) are due to me getting a sense that I am picking up on some form of deception, or perhaps invasion of my, or another's, privacy, sometimes, maybe? Even self-deception in others can trigger a response from me. I try to control my urge to call people out on things I am feeling about them because I might be wrong about them but it happens. I don't get that way with everyone. I may pick these things up in some people and literally laugh them off. I think it has something to do with how I am perceiving the intent behind it. Which would probably make those ethical/intuitive issues which don't apply to you or ConcreteButterfly, specifically, as an underlying problem in understanding. I probably take issue with situations where I feel it is illogical misinformation being spread around and leading susceptible people astray. :/ Again, that does not apply to either of you.

    My ethical issues are very different than my logical issues. Perhaps I take issue with logic in a less detached way as it doesn't activate my feeling center whereas some intuitive or feeling issues I have can activate all my centers. I don't seem to have many issues with sensing. It just is. :/

    In conclusion this all makes sense to me. If it makes any sense to you then congratulations on following my train of thoughts. If it doesn't, feel free to correct me and I will tell you if you are wrong.
    Last edited by Aylen; 03-17-2015 at 01:49 AM.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  22. #22
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,897
    Mentioned
    734 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly View Post
    Btw Aylen, I didn't write was was in the original post, that's direct from Http://en.socionics.ru (hence the quotes)
    I know. I just seized the moment as it was relevant to something I was contemplating yesterday.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  23. #23

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

    Default

    @Aylen, I feel sorry for people who argue with me too...heh... although in all seriousness, I don't really entertain arguments much. I don't hold opinions so much as, I aim for the most detached truth-seeking possible, that is above individual opinion. When I know I'm engaging an opinionated person, I aim to write clarifying remarks for the general benefit of the thread, but that is mostly it. I also find most disagreements end pretty naturally once each side engages the effort to clarify clarify clarify clarify. To the extent they don't get resolved in this fashion, the material involved is likely not of interest to me anyway (too infused with opinion).

    Anyway, I think I have usually a mixture of stuff that applies quite naturally to the frameworks of the systems, and then stuff that's very much my own personal edifice of knowledge. As silke noted when I first talked to her, it often looks like I'm just speaking to myself, and that's not far from the truth, albeit, I think the thoughts are detailed enough that someone with interest can look through and get something from it. Albeit possibly not get quite why I was going on and on about certain things at times.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    I've wonder if this is merely a normative case and not always true. Is there a case where preference and strength doesn't align.
    I think it aligns for me fine, it's just hard to see preference differences.

    Also preference can be situation dependent to a degree, I'm pretty sure on this. Or I wouldn't be typing as Beta ST instead of Ti-SLE or Se-LSI right now Just for the sake of precision though

  25. #25
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I think it aligns for me fine, it's just hard to see preference differences.

    Also preference can be situation dependent to a degree, I'm pretty sure on this. Or I wouldn't be typing as Beta ST instead of Ti-SLE or Se-LSI right now Just for the sake of precision though
    I think the is whether the alignment is a "Always" or "Most of the time"

    I think from observation most of the time the alignment matches, but within variation one can sense the asymmetric nature of individuals. Statistical analysis wise this would be like 1 hump, 2 hump and various results when/if the analysis occurs with the common variations within the humps and the outliers different and sometimes radically. I think there is multimodal distribution of common variations.

    There could very likely be various scenarios that arise where within a type there are some common variations and perhaps even one where the preferences don't align with strength.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    I think the is whether the alignment is a "Always" or "Most of the time"

    I think from observation most of the time the alignment matches, but within variation one can sense the asymmetric nature of individuals. Statistical analysis wise this would be like 1 hump, 2 hump and various results when/if the analysis occurs with the common variations within the humps and the outliers different and sometimes radically. I think there is multimodal distribution of common variations.

    There could very likely be various scenarios that arise where within a type there are some common variations and perhaps even one where the preferences don't align with strength.
    then the current framework sucks

  27. #27
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    then the current framework sucks
    The framework predicts this just not exactly how it would manifest.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    The framework predicts this just not exactly how it would manifest.
    how does it predict it?

  29. #29
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,478
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ego: creative, the generation of new actions and ideas

    super ego: embarrassment, fear of being caught lacking in

    super id: uncreative, imitative

    id: the routine, the preliminary
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  30. #30
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,131
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    then the current framework sucks
    You gotta use broad strokes to paint a house.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

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

Posting Permissions

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