Si-PoLr?

[DEAD]

What is the simplest way to describe Si PoLr? What are the most simple points to it? Gimme some examples.

[Pookie]

NO I WILL NOT BRUSH MY TEETH, MOM!

[Aylen]

NO I WILL NOT BRUSH MY TEETH, MOM!

That's fine little "whatever your name is". Don't come to me for money when you need 1000s of $s, for dental work, by the time you reach your early 20s. Like Pilot I wash my hands of you now. I am no longer responsible for your future gum health regardless what the child raising books say. I would make a terrible enforcer. Do not leave your children with me. :/

I think @Iris had some good Si polr stories.

[chemical]

With all polrs it's useful to view them in light of a combination of being

a) opposite in rational-irrational compared to the preferred ego-attitude
b) if e.g. the polr is rational, it's the opposite type of rationality preferred in the ego

I should note this somewhat diverges from Jung, but actually not except in terms of the common portrayal of Jungian stuff... in actuality Jung emphasized the irrational-rational tension a lot in his original work, but it got kind of watered down in the acceptance of auxiliaries. I think socionics' model is a good way of reinforcing that there really is a negative attitude to the opposite.

E.g. those pesky rigid INj types' ego bias becomes evident with inability to deal with the irrational functioning required by Se.

Anyway, let's analyze Si and Ni a little. Both Si and Ni, being the introverted perspective on irrational consciousness, involve not an observation of the objects of consciousness (which are more or less identical with a single state of consciousness -- they can either be more mental in nature or more physical in nature) but rather of the relations between those objects -- hence relating the states of consciousness. The natural variable relating two states is time.

The Ni perspective is complementary to the Se one, being that both relate to the fact that one's involvement with the objects of consciousness involves some level of the objects moving oneself, and oneself moving them -- this leads to every state of consciousness consisting of changing potentialities, where Ni observes the corresponding stream.
The Si perspective reflects that perspective on involvedness which withdraws from the objects of consciousness one is involved with, thus any sense of involvement is observed at most through modification of one's exact state, so that any knowledge gained of objects that complements this perspective involves summing over all possible modifications of their state - their raw potential.

To understand what's going on with polr, it's necessary to also note the ego's relation to the creative: it's important to note that the creative (unless one more or less has a dual type) is more a testament to the inability to wholly ignore the irrational or rational factor in a given cognition than an acceptance of both simultaneously. So, the only real reason the secondary/creative is allowable is it playing sufficiently well to complement the dominant ego perspective. As a result, any portion of the irrational factor which is not subsumed into the ego perspective becomes a threat.

Basically this is what is happening with Si in the Ni-creative.

[golden]

If you're looking for one of those one-word shortcuts, I remember Ashton referring to it as "homeostasis," and I don't know if that was his original idea, but regardless, it's a helpful orientation imo.

I don't know so many ENTjs but have traded some notes with them. As for EIEs, I've known lots. One, for example, who always seemed to be shivering he was so high-strung, and who had a kind of hypochondriasis and squeamishness. I've known one who seemed pretty chill but kind of shuffled when he walked and did strange things like leave little piles of strange trash in his wake wherever he went, it was an oddity several people tracked about him. I've often heard secondhand of a dead semi-famous guru-y one who was an extreme stickler for artistic power and precision, but whose personal habits were so slovenly that people were afraid to enter his apartment. I've known one who was a charismatic yoga teacher extremely cautious about safeguarding people's well-being and had a more inspiring than technical take on yoga.

In all of those people and more, I can trace these behaviors back to Si-polr in various ways, and as you can see from the range on offer, as usual there's no one-for-one polr-behavior relationship.

[chemical]

I personally went into that long explanation just because, I tend to be skeptical about too Te-esque uses of socionics. I think socionics was created by Ti-valuing types and it shows, so if a Te-valuing type likes its ideas but wants to shift it to a different manner of use, he/she needs to modify the system.

Basically what this means is the strength of the model is not the raw application of definitions to factual situations. I often say, if one just wants to take an IE like Si and just measure instances of it, those instances will unlikely fit into any model. Like if you just measure instances of comfort-seeking or whatever.
You'll find TONS of logical contradictions if you try to turn this into a factual theory. People who clearly seem to fit NiFe, yet like their comfort. And so on and so forth.

The real strength here is in modeling key structurally meaningful facets of the psyche rather than in exhaustive measurement of facts. I do not think by any stretch that the sum total of one's function-attitude applications/deployments can be captured adequately in the model A type structure. The Ne+Ti perspective on this sum total of deployment activities though is not to record them as they occur, but rather to select a meaningful point whose potentiality a large energetically meaningful share of these deployments are an expression of, and then capture the key structural facets influencing that point.

If you want to get empirical, it just all comes crashing down. People who are forceful in ego suddenly need to be either Ti or Fi ego? WTF, basically. Using an obviously Ti-system in a Te way never ends well, and vice versa.

With enneagram I learned this in the inverse fashion and had to rewrite aspects of it to be more meaningful. It ends up not being exactly the same, but similar enough so that I feel I profited in knowledge.

[silverchris9]

EIE singers who have severe vocal damage but ignore the signals coming from their bodies (i.e., pain) in favor of maximizing emotional movement by singing in a "high impact" manner are a great example of Si-polr. Si-polr is just like... being alternately hypersensitive to your body's demands and 100% indifferent to them. I guess that's the simplest form of it, as I don't want to reduce Si to "knowledge about the body" but then like... I dunno, knowledge about the body is hugely important! But yeah, Si-polr is an inability to hear/unwillingness to listen to that inner voice that asks how am I reacting to my own actions/the conditions that I am living in or creating. You can generalize it as well... like... not just physical pain but like... say there's something in your life that's just making you overall really unhappy, it it's not a sharp, localized unhappiness, Si-polr may be unable to pick up on how exposure to one person or object or experience or state or location or whatever really just creates a malaise of yuck/bad/don't want in your life.

[Suz]

I personally went into that long explanation just because, I tend to be skeptical about too Te-esque uses of socionics. I think socionics was created by Ti-valuing types and it shows, so if a Te-valuing type likes its ideas but wants to shift it to a different manner of use, he/she needs to modify the system.

Basically what this means is the strength of the model is not the raw application of definitions to factual situations. I often say, if one just wants to take an IE like Si and just measure instances of it, those instances will unlikely fit into any model. Like if you just measure instances of comfort-seeking or whatever.
You'll find TONS of logical contradictions if you try to turn this into a factual theory. People who clearly seem to fit NiFe, yet like their comfort. And so on and so forth.

The real strength here is in modeling key structurally meaningful facets of the psyche rather than in exhaustive measurement of facts. I do not think by any stretch that the sum total of one's function-attitude applications/deployments can be captured adequately in the model A type structure. The Ne+Ti perspective on this sum total of deployment activities though is not to record them as they occur, but rather to select a meaningful point whose potentiality a large energetically meaningful share of these deployments are an expression of, and then capture the key structural facets influencing that point.

If you want to get empirical, it just all comes crashing down. People who are forceful in ego suddenly need to be either Ti or Fi ego? WTF, basically. Using an obviously Ti-system in a Te way never ends well, and vice versa.

With enneagram I learned this in the inverse fashion and had to rewrite aspects of it to be more meaningful. It ends up not being exactly the same, but similar enough so that I feel I profited in knowledge.

[ouronis]

I personally went into that long explanation just because, I tend to be skeptical about too Te-esque uses of socionics. I think socionics was created by Ti-valuing types and it shows, so if a Te-valuing type likes its ideas but wants to shift it to a different manner of use, he/she needs to modify the system.

Basically what this means is the strength of the model is not the raw application of definitions to factual situations. I often say, if one just wants to take an IE like Si and just measure instances of it, those instances will unlikely fit into any model. Like if you just measure instances of comfort-seeking or whatever.
You'll find TONS of logical contradictions if you try to turn this into a factual theory. People who clearly seem to fit NiFe, yet like their comfort. And so on and so forth.

The real strength here is in modeling key structurally meaningful facets of the psyche rather than in exhaustive measurement of facts. I do not think by any stretch that the sum total of one's function-attitude applications/deployments can be captured adequately in the model A type structure. The Ne+Ti perspective on this sum total of deployment activities though is not to record them as they occur, but rather to select a meaningful point whose potentiality a large energetically meaningful share of these deployments are an expression of, and then capture the key structural facets influencing that point.

If you want to get empirical, it just all comes crashing down. People who are forceful in ego suddenly need to be either Ti or Fi ego? WTF, basically. Using an obviously Ti-system in a Te way never ends well, and vice versa.

With enneagram I learned this in the inverse fashion and had to rewrite aspects of it to be more meaningful. It ends up not being exactly the same, but similar enough so that I feel I profited in knowledge.

Let me translate this to all the non-Ti people: "It's ok to be Ti."

[The Exception]

NO I WILL NOT BRUSH MY TEETH, MOM!

LOL! When I was a kid, I would get into power struggles over things like this all the time. In my case, I don't think it was so much Si PoLR as Se PoLR. My mom insisted I do something and Se PoLR doesn't like to be pushed around and given orders like that, regardless of what it is.

Let me translate this to all the non-Ti people: "It's ok to be Ti."

It's also okay to not be Ti.

But if you're Ti, I will like you better.

[GuavaDrunk]

Anecdote: I once went to a track and field club out of interest for sprinting. After some warming up the coach had us run 100m a few times at various speeds. I am neither a runner nor generally used to running, so was comparatively slow. I tried to apply the technical tips he'd shown (and, I was told, did so rather well) however I pushed myself rather hard so as not to be even slower and halfway through the session had to stop for an injured hamstring.

So: Good control of how to move my limbs, felt that the muscles were pushed very hard but did not pick up on impending injury, could localise the injury well afterwards, once I wasn't focused on something else. Detailed awareness of which muscle does what or what they need to do, but in a mechanical/proprioception rather than comfort-oriented sense.

A sort of willful ignorance of certain signals. If I had to take care of someone's physical needs and comfort I would first try to get out of it and then get either frustrated (DON'T WANNA mood,) or stressed and then just... tired (Doing the Duty, now leave me alone.) Unsure about any instance where I'd enjoy it.

This is mostly because I expect other people to be competent at it, and if they need something to tell me what it is. None of this guessing crap about what the ray of sunshine incident at 45 degree on your left temporal bone feels like. Secondly, if you tell me that your comfort tea is made of leaves from a crow's nest and needs to be strained under the light of the full moon by a vestal virgin, I will brain you with the teacup.

Old post on the same subject: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post879030 Whole thread is of interest.

[chemical]

One really meaningful theme I thought of for this is the overall Te vs sensation distinction in how "facts" are seen. Sensation involves no logical abstraction - it is the direct apprehension of a tangible situation. In my experience in personality theory, I've encountered some extremely Te types who, while certainly insightful in their own ways, seem to have a chronic weakness in terms of the sensation perspective on facts. The key is sensation is a richer, yet less logically abstracted version of the factual account of a situation.
It's like the difference between what fits in a logical measurement and what is more or less one's impressions...mental imagery and the like.

I find the Te types sometimes get rigidly caught up in the procedures of measurement and miss out on the vividness of experience. After all, the reason Te can purport to say it kind of dryly hits things "as they are" is its focus on measurement.

So in short, where Si might help record the various shifts in your state produced by tangible events, it's characteristic of Te types who devalue Si (or even some of the LSE-Te with especially pronounced Te) to miss out on all this, focusing on facts not as they shift their state but as more or less totally removed from their experience.

I think what's interesting to me is the big difference in feel these people show as compared to say beta-STs in touch with sensation (aka not like, a super super super Ti, little S, LSI).

I actually think it's quite understandable why some of these beta-STs might get so into the Jungian frameworks. Something like how Ti frameworks constantly are modeling the intricacies of what factors are affecting their concrete visualization of the moment.

[chemical]

Basically the Te trap in those cases is to get so caught up in the schematic of measurement that they forget the experience being measured.

I mean it makes sense. To logically abstract yet purport to be very focused on the factual (unlike Ti really), the key is largely in measurement. Why lots of scientist types probably fit well in the delta-ST realm.
It's just also definitely a blind spot producer.

Anyway this doesn't answer Si-polr exactly, but I think interested parties can take some of this perspective and infer some things about what Te-base Si-polr might look like

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

im just glad we are talking about a polr other than Te polr. haha entjs have si polr, what losers amiright. how can you not just feel relaxed sensations in ur body, have to always be some asshole american capitalist. haha hahahahahahhahahahaha let's all bully them.

[FDG]

One really meaningful theme I thought of for this is the overall Te vs sensation distinction in how "facts" are seen. Sensation involves no logical abstraction - it is the direct apprehension of a tangible situation. In my experience in personality theory, I've encountered some extremely Te types who, while certainly insightful in their own ways, seem to have a chronic weakness in terms of the sensation perspective on facts. The key is sensation is a richer, yet less logically abstracted version of the factual account of a situation.
It's like the difference between what fits in a logical measurement and what is more or less one's impressions...mental imagery and the like.

I find the Te types sometimes get rigidly caught up in the procedures of measurement and miss out on the vividness of experience. After all, the reason Te can purport to say it kind of dryly hits things "as they are" is its focus on measurement.

A pratical example (correct me if you think I´m wrong) would be a sportsman trying to control his performance solely on the basis of his heart rate, power outpout, current speed, temperature, average speed without taking into consideration what other players are doing / how the course looks like, how other players feel towards each other, etc. etc.

[FDG]

I personally went into that long explanation just because, I tend to be skeptical about too Te-esque uses of socionics. I think socionics was created by Ti-valuing types and it shows, so if a Te-valuing type likes its ideas but wants to shift it to a different manner of use, he/she needs to modify the system.

The strenght of socionics compared to MBTI is its focus on relationships. So imho if you want to measure how realistic socionics is, you can take type as granted and measure the (probabilistic) success of relationships among theoretically compatible types.

[chemical]

That's interesting; I wonder if other Te-oriented guys also measure socionics' success that way. A sort of "does it fulfill what it was created for."

As you can imagine perhaps, my approach to evaluating it is a little more along the lines of "do the structures it uses to conceptualize psychological types theory have strong potential"

[Adam Strange]

That's interesting; I wonder if other Te-oriented guys also measure socionics' success that way. A sort of "does it fulfill what it was created for."

Yep.

[Adam Strange]

Hi, chemical.
Te-base ENTj types can be fierce questioners of reports about reality, and look for any kind of inconsistencies in descriptions, because they cannot make a plan (Ni) that succeeds in the real world if they do not have verified data from the real world (Se). They really don't care about other people's feelings (Fi) or theory, unless the theory is both proven and can give them an advantage in dealing with the real world. Their method of getting at the truth through intense questioning can make them look like confrontational assholes who doubt your ability to clearly perceive or describe things. In truth, they are just trying to find out if you really, really believe what you said, and whether or not it can be reconciled with what they already know about the situation. If you can convince them that you are right using an argument based on logic and facts, they will respect you. They will completely ignore how loudly you had to shout at them to get your point across, because they only care about the point, not the shouting.

Yep, we're assholes, all right.

I thought you might be an Alpha NT because your thinking appears to me to be logical and intelligent (NT) but brick-like (Ti), instead of continuous-path-like (Te). That is, lots of ideas that seem to be somewhat disconnected from each other, instead of being a logical progression leading to a goal. I'm not saying that's how it is, I'm just saying that's the impression that I get.

With respect to differentiating between LII and ILE, (and I've known people of both types for many, many years), I think that both types have brick-like thinking, both types are amazingly smart if you look deeply and don't rush them for answers (although the LII's have the edge), but the ILE's seem more scatter-brained to me, and are unable to make a plan and stick with it. I know they really are not that, but that is my first impression of them. The LII's will usually wait and think and get a coherent thought process going before presenting their ideas, whereas the ILE's just seem to throw stuff out there.

[chemical]

Heh well I like this too:

They will completely ignore how loudly you had to shout at them to get your point across, because they only care about the point, not the shouting.

and would say on that point I'm similar.

I do think like you say, my thinking is not algorithmic, in the Te sense, which is what I think you mean by having a progression leading to a goal ... and more structural, which is probably what you mean by brick-like. And on a related note, this is why I sort of never approached type with a "how do I calculate someone's type" slant, and prefer an approach akin to slowly chipping away at what drives various typological systems until I get to the core of each one and can formulate what its axioms "should be" most clearly

[bolong]

NO I WILL NOT BRUSH MY TEETH, MOM!

Actually it's the opposite - diligently brushing, and/or being sensitive to the idea of bad breath, trying to avoid the uncomfortable situations that might arise because of it.

[Aylen]

EIE singers who have severe vocal damage but ignore the signals coming from their bodies (i.e., pain) in favor of maximizing emotional movement by singing in a "high impact" manner are a great example of Si-polr. Si-polr is just like... being alternately hypersensitive to your body's demands and 100% indifferent to them. I guess that's the simplest form of it, as I don't want to reduce Si to "knowledge about the body" but then like... I dunno, knowledge about the body is hugely important! But yeah, Si-polr is an inability to hear/unwillingness to listen to that inner voice that asks how am I reacting to my own actions/the conditions that I am living in or creating. You can generalize it as well... like... not just physical pain but like... say there's something in your life that's just making you overall really unhappy, it it's not a sharp, localized unhappiness, Si-polr may be unable to pick up on how exposure to one person or object or experience or state or location or whatever really just creates a malaise of yuck/bad/don't want in your life.

I usually can pinpoint the source of my discomfort quickly even though I can go into denial about it, to others, I still know. I had a friend who would cause me to break out in a red stinging rash when they were angry. Even over the internet or phone. It didn't take me long to realize they were the source since it went away as soon as I stopped talking to them but if I tried to talk to them again, when they were angry, it would come right back. I tested this out several times and they appeared to be the only source of my discomfort even though they suggested it was my laptop monitor, and not them at all, when I told them they gave me a rash when they were angry. In fact they started researching effects of monitors to convince me it wasn't them. I knew it was them and their evidence was not convincing me otherwise.

[Myst]

Basically what this means is the strength of the model is not the raw application of definitions to factual situations. I often say, if one just wants to take an IE like Si and just measure instances of it, those instances will unlikely fit into any model. Like if you just measure instances of comfort-seeking or whatever.
You'll find TONS of logical contradictions if you try to turn this into a factual theory. People who clearly seem to fit NiFe, yet like their comfort. And so on and so forth.

Argh, that's a crappy example if illustrating how it would be turned into a factual theory. Liking comfort on its own isn't the same as being Si base, Si can be anywhere in the model A config of functions and that has to be taken into account when seeing a Si-like manifestation. Overall, the concept of Si base shouldn't be put into such superficial definitions when operationalizing it for measurement as that'd mean ignoring what Model A is really about. I do believe such definitions can be produced that take into account things about the model of functions itself and not just these superficial equations of 1 specific trait vs 1 function/IE.

The real strength here is in modeling key structurally meaningful facets of the psyche rather than in exhaustive measurement of facts. I do not think by any stretch that the sum total of one's function-attitude applications/deployments can be captured adequately in the model A type structure. The Ne+Ti perspective on this sum total of deployment activities though is not to record them as they occur, but rather to select a meaningful point whose potentiality a large energetically meaningful share of these deployments are an expression of, and then capture the key structural facets influencing that point.

How do you determine what is meaningful?

If you want to get empirical, it just all comes crashing down.

If it does then something is seriously wrong.

People who are forceful in ego suddenly need to be either Ti or Fi ego? WTF, basically. Using an obviously Ti-system in a Te way never ends well, and vice versa.

Empirical != defining things in that superficial way that you are trying to describe here.

I actually think it's quite understandable why some of these beta-STs might get so into the Jungian frameworks. Something like how Ti frameworks constantly are modeling the intricacies of what factors are affecting their concrete visualization of the moment.

Uhh in the moment? In my case it only works in retrospect, attempts at modeling that sort of stuff, I mean. If I already have the framework, it's not about "constantly modeling", it's more like, just something I work from. I don't know if you meant that yourself.

Also I find it weird you'd say "concrete visualization of the moment"... I don't really visualize the moment in my head, it's just in front of me, is how I experience it. Not trying to nitpick here, I just found the wording strange from my own POV.

Btw, as for measurement as it is, it can be either T function. Depends how you do it.

A pratical example (correct me if you think I´m wrong) would be a sportsman trying to control his performance solely on the basis of his heart rate, power outpout, current speed, temperature, average speed without taking into consideration what other players are doing / how the course looks like, how other players feel towards each other, etc. etc.

I don't see why what other players are doing / how the course looks like can't be subjected to measurements, heh. Actually they can be measured too. How they feel towards each other, hm..

[silverchris9]

I usually can pinpoint the source of my discomfort quickly even though I can go into denial about it, to others, I still know. I had a friend who would cause me to break out in a red stinging rash when they were angry. Even over the internet or phone. It didn't take me long to realize they were the source since it went away as soon as I stopped talking to them but if I tried to talk to them again, when they were angry, it would come right back. I tested this out several times and they appeared to be the only source of my discomfort even though they suggested it was my laptop monitor, and not them at all, when I told them they gave me a rash when they were angry. In fact they started researching effects of monitors to convince me it wasn't them. I knew it was them and their evidence was not convincing me otherwise.

Hm, that's an interesting example! Here's what I think in response to that:

1) it could just be Si-polr in terms of like... attributing a physical reaction to an inaccurate cause. I am inclined to believe that you'd get a rash from a person being angry at you, sure, but I do think the belief is a little mystical, so, for instance, an SiTe type might be inclined to argue that, well... you're wrong and there was a more direct or explicit cause (perhaps precisely what this person argued.)

2) I would call this an example of a sharp, localized sort of pain. That is... it doesn't take a great degree of subtle understanding of your internal state to notice a rash and correlate it to an event. I think Si can pick up on things that are much more subtle than, say, a rash that you can pretty clearly see with your eyes.

But I do get your point---it's important to note that EIEs can certainly perceive issues relating to their bodies and work on them. But I would argue that it is not solely an issue of "recognize-and-deny" but also an issue of recognizing less, getting less information about your body's reaction to things, less subtle information, etc.

[chemical]

@Myst if you think the majority of my point only applies to the crappy definitions of socionics IE people use, no that isn't it. I used that as examples of what people do, and while you're right that *one* of the reasons this fails is they're bad definitions, that overly restrict the possible meanings of what an IE could entail, the other issue is simply that if you took the totality of deployments of the processes, they just don't fit into a rigid structure such as model A... and that *includes* deployments that are non-stereotypical versions of the IE (e.g. versions of Si that are not just comfort which may not be Si even in any meaningful sense).

So no, I'm not just restricting being empirical to ascribing stereotypical factual definitions of the IE, and my point is independent of the examples I gave of the IE.

I think however that you already are aware the theory comes crashing down if applied rigidly as exactly it is to empirical reality, as you make plenty of adjustments to it yourself to better fit what really happens. I think with that attitude, yes it can be more empirically valid. But I already allowed for that when I suggested to get a truly empirical theory, modification e.g. in form of additional subtypes and all that stuff is needed.

I really don't think either Aushra or Jung was pretty much describing consciousness as and how it appears (both were intuitives, and again it shows); they were taking the liberty of conceptualizing what seems the essence of consciousness, the ego, and the unconscious, and they came up with speculative models that try to penetrate the core of that. If not used this way, and if used as significantly more empirical tools without significant modification, I maintain you're going to end up with quite a bad time.

But you honestly seem to have got wind of this in your own way.

And this all doesn't mean they don't have anything to do with how consciousness appears to concretely function -- it does have insightful things to say about that.

I'm probably just more comfortable with this :-) being a Ti+S type you get a bit more into laying stakes on modeling reality concretely.

[chemical]

I think I am just as no-BS though. I don't care about concreteness, but I do believe in rationality very strongly, which means if your theory is mental concoction, and pure principle and not factual, then just state that as one of the parameters about how you reason about it. And to the extent it *does* relate to concrete phenomena, need to model them accurately.

[chemical]

This thread is ever-sparking my interest in understanding what is the difference between Te-factuality and beta-ST's own reality leanings. My current thoughts lead me in the direction of contrasting the non-S Te types, especially say ILIs, with the beta-STs.

What occurs to me right now is that gamma-NT tend to see any factual implementation as the implementation of an intuition. Even if it is a concrete situation being measured, the situation is fitted to a mental picture to form the standards of description and measurement. The form the intuition takes can morph to fit many factual procedures, so it is never endeavored to be captured as a static structure. Instead, what is claimed with logical definiteness resembles how to go from here to there, exactly, sort of step by step; the intuition is born in mind, though.

Beta-ST seem to be capable of not rejecting abstract approaches actually, but it seems to depend on the extent to which the tangible situations they wish to model seem to always carry the same set of laws. It's not Ne as an attitude at work, because they then seem to be more interested in also modeling more specific situations; but to the extent a general law is always true of a concrete experience, and/or relates to the influence they wish to have over it, they're interested. That seems to be where someone like me and a beta-ST have overlap in agenda.

[Myst]

Anecdote: I once went to a track and field club out of interest for sprinting. After some warming up the coach had us run 100m a few times at various speeds. I am neither a runner nor generally used to running, so was comparatively slow. I tried to apply the technical tips he'd shown (and, I was told, did so rather well) however I pushed myself rather hard so as not to be even slower and halfway through the session had to stop for an injured hamstring.

So: Good control of how to move my limbs, felt that the muscles were pushed very hard but did not pick up on impending injury, could localise the injury well afterwards, once I wasn't focused on something else. Detailed awareness of which muscle does what or what they need to do, but in a mechanical/proprioception rather than comfort-oriented sense.

Just to compare Si demonstrative with this:

Consciously I only have the mechanical/proprioception thing myself too so I relate to that strongly but additionally I have some rather unconscious/automatic instinct that sorts out the rest. Almost like magic I won't say I won't ever get injured - that depends a bit on luck too - but I guess less likely than for some people.

A sort of willful ignorance of certain signals.

I can certainly ignore them consciously but can also just let myself go by them if it doesn't get in the way of some Se agenda.

Secondly, if you tell me that your comfort tea is made of leaves from a crow's nest and needs to be strained under the light of the full moon by a vestal virgin, I will brain you with the teacup.

Right, it leaves me unimpressed too, I subscribe to KISS about these things. Though not upset at having to pay attention to this stuff.. more like neutral or slightly bored.


As for your old post you linked to;

I've only learned in recent years to even *notice* if I have a fever or feel sick. Meaning spending a day in bed feeling shitty and working out I'm sick at the end of it. For a while I kept a thermometer nearby and measured my temperature here and there to build up an understanding of what various subjective states meant.

That's interesting, I've done that in some sports, measuring the subjective states to be able to make a better training plan out of it. But that's not a trivial/everyday thing at all. I would say quite advanced use of Ti/Si For these more trivial things like feeling sick or having a fever, I never had a problem. I don't really even need a thermometer to correctly guess at what degree of fever I have.

Occasional derps in noticing a physical chain of events, eg: "if the pan handle that I am about to pick up has been over an open flame for a few minutes then it will be hot."

That for me is automatic knowledge, available for use without thinking. I'm rather good at maneuvering in this fashion. Like, with this example, I could perhaps actually pick up the pan handle without burning myself. [Depends on the exact situation if this is possible.] I certainly don't always have to keep to the norms of "don't pick up something hot", lol.

I can focus on the present moment but that's done more through, say, how vivid and awesome a colour looks than through how, iunno, blue I feel. The feelings are subjectively not processed via my body if that makes sense.

Exact same.

Strong hatred of japanese tea ceremony. Listening to one for a few seconds literally made me want to break stuff. One aim of said ceremony afaik is, in bastardised terms, a coalescence of one's active consciousness with one's gestures and environment. Inner stillness via identifying with graceful outer actions. (Not sure "identifying" is the right term since it implies ego but it'll do.)

I'm not even getting the idea. How or why would I try to adjust myself to those graceful gestures or what. It doesn't make me want to break stuff but it's just highly uninteresting and totally not making sense. Definitely some cognitive aversion if I try to think about it more.

Strong discomfort with listening to eg: meditative indian music with its expectation of "relaxing" me. Bitch imma relax when I want to let me mentally process this in peace.

So this is PoLR for you again, with this stuff I don't have your discomfort, don't get too upset, I'm just dismissive to such suggestions and left unaffected by the whole process. Suppose that's one main difference between PoLR and demonstrative

@Myst if you think the majority of my point only applies to the crappy definitions of socionics IE people use, no that isn't it. I used that as examples of what people do, and while you're right that *one* of the reasons this fails is they're bad definitions, that overly restrict the possible meanings of what an IE could entail, the other issue is simply that if you took the totality of deployments of the processes, they just don't fit into a rigid structure such as model A... and that *includes* deployments that are non-stereotypical versions of the IE (e.g. versions of Si that are not just comfort which may not be Si even in any meaningful sense).

How do you define this rigid structure of Model A though? It does matter because in your previous example you seemed to forget about some principles that are in it. Sounded something like, a model of where Si can only ever manifest in any form if it's in ego block and never if it's outside ego and/or valued blocks. [Assuming the definition of Si itself was okay. If not, that's another issue.] Which is clearly not what the official model states. Also, I think Model A lacks some other principles. Though of course that's just my understanding.

I think however that you already are aware the theory comes crashing down if applied rigidly as exactly it is to empirical reality, as you make plenty of adjustments to it yourself to better fit what really happens.

Explain more about how it comes crashing down for you? No problem about adjustments, sure.

I really don't think either Aushra or Jung was pretty much describing consciousness as and how it appears (both were intuitives, and again it shows); they were taking the liberty of conceptualizing what seems the essence of consciousness, the ego, and the unconscious, and they came up with speculative models that try to penetrate the core of that. If not used this way, and if used as significantly more empirical tools without significant modification, I maintain you're going to end up with quite a bad time.

They still relied on actual data, no?

How exactly do you disagree with my approach though? This specifically: "I do believe such [operationalized] definitions can be produced that take into account things about the model of functions itself"

I mean, I'm not following you here, do you even disagree with that?

And this all doesn't mean they don't have anything to do with how consciousness appears to concretely function -- it does have insightful things to say about that.

If it didn't, what would the point be?

I'm probably just more comfortable with this :-) being a Ti+S type you get a bit more into laying stakes on modeling reality concretely.

For sure

[Myst]

This thread is ever-sparking my interest in understanding what is the difference between Te-factuality and beta-ST's own reality leanings. My current thoughts lead me in the direction of contrasting the non-S Te types, especially say ILIs, with the beta-STs.

What occurs to me right now is that gamma-NT tend to see any factual implementation as the implementation of an intuition. Even if it is a concrete situation being measured, the situation is fitted to a mental picture to form the standards of description and measurement. The form the intuition takes can morph to fit many factual procedures, so it is never endeavored to be captured as a static structure. Instead, what is claimed with logical definiteness resembles how to go from here to there, exactly, sort of step by step; the intuition is born in mind, though.

Beta-ST seem to be capable of not rejecting abstract approaches actually, but it seems to depend on the extent to which the tangible situations they wish to model seem to always carry the same set of laws. It's not Ne as an attitude at work, because they then seem to be more interested in also modeling more specific situations; but to the extent a general law is always true of a concrete experience, and/or relates to the influence they wish to have over it, they're interested. That seems to be where someone like me and a beta-ST have overlap in agenda.

You got that very well, about the beta ST approach

Just this one part was unclear: "It's not Ne as an attitude at work, because they then seem to be more interested in also modeling more specific situations" --> rephrase this about Ne?

[chemical]

Well the overlap with Ne's agenda is basically to the extent that people who are interested in the potential of an object vs those interested in how to impact an object both want to know what's true of it in every situation (since that's sufficiently removed from the many concrete manifestations and certainly closer to the raw potential independent of its more tangible movements)... it's likely why you're able to get something out of someone like Jung I think. Ne may then jump into potential ways of seeing something for the sake of doing so, which then runs mostly tangential to Se.

How exactly do you disagree with my approach though? This specifically: "I do believe such [operationalized] definitions can be produced that take into account things about the model of functions itself"

I mean, I'm not following you here, do you even disagree with that?

I think I agree with that, if by that you mean to suggest that we don't adopt the most general definitions of the IE, only ones pertaining to the dynamics predicted by the model, but maybe I'm not getting your point, you can certainly explain more if you like

That naturally might solve some issues for someone who does want a strong structurally defined model. I could imagine someone of an intuitive bent being more hesitant adopting this approach, because at the end of the day those other dimensions to the IE still "exist", waiting to be conceptualized, whether or not they're relevant to the specific dynamics of a given model.

I've run into this difference in the typing community before.. where some people are more comfortable to taking definitions that apply to a specific situation - that way they really do achieve concreteness and reality. Others are interested in the general idea of the 8 IE and philosophize them without having a concrete situation in mind to model.

As for rigidity I'm mainly referring to the roles -- Beebe has some roles he assigns to the 8, socionics has some roles, and so forth, but at the end of the day I think it's hard to generalize what role a specific IE takes in a given person's psyche into anything overly symmetric (e.g. taking TiNe as starting point, and then deducing the superego, id, superid entirely from that).

Whatever was the stuff you were saying about how Si can take on different roles outside the ego, I don't dispute any of that. My example may not have been ideally suited to illustrate the general point precisely because it could be that the flaw I was pointing out resulted from other bad assumptions people make..but it certainly can arise in part from the particular kinds of issues I was pointing out. The example was more a jeer than really my point -- you know how often I given examples

[Iris]

I think @Iris had some good Si polr stories.

I have had a splinter in my finger for 2 days but have been too busy to stop and get it out...

[Iris]

Actually it's the opposite - diligently brushing, and/or being sensitive to the idea of bad breath, trying to avoid the uncomfortable situations that might arise because of it.

Agree! A minty fresh mouth tastes nice, but i dont brush with that in mind. I brush so i wont offend others.

[Aylen]

I have had a splinter in my finger for 2 days but have been too busy to stop and get it out...

I would have gone to the emergency room crying dramatically, like child. lol Ok, not quite but there is no way I would be able to think about anything else until it was out. Pain, not fear, is my mind killer. It really has a way of making me focus on the moment.

[Myst]

Well the overlap with Ne's agenda is basically to the extent that people who are interested in the potential of an object vs those interested in how to impact an object both want to know what's true of it in every situation (since that's sufficiently removed from the many concrete manifestations and certainly closer to the raw potential independent of its more tangible movements)... it's likely why you're able to get something out of someone like Jung I think. Ne may then jump into potential ways of seeing something for the sake of doing so, which then runs mostly tangential to Se.

OK.

I think I agree with that, if by that you mean to suggest that we don't adopt the most general definitions of the IE, only ones pertaining to the dynamics predicted by the model, but maybe I'm not getting your point, you can certainly explain more if you like

The general definitions are fine but have to take into account the dimensionality of information processing and the dynamics between certain functions.

What did you mean by not adopting the general definitions?

That naturally might solve some issues for someone who does want a strong structurally defined model. I could imagine someone of an intuitive bent being more hesitant adopting this approach, because at the end of the day those other dimensions to the IE still "exist", waiting to be conceptualized, whether or not they're relevant to the specific dynamics of a given model.

Well we think differently there. What's the point of conceptualizing stuff if it's not done inside a nice structured framework?

I've run into this difference in the typing community before.. where some people are more comfortable to taking definitions that apply to a specific situation - that way they really do achieve concreteness and reality. Others are interested in the general idea of the 8 IE and philosophize them without having a concrete situation in mind to model.

What I'm most comfortable with is ideas that work as general rules in real situations

As for rigidity I'm mainly referring to the roles -- Beebe has some roles he assigns to the 8, socionics has some roles, and so forth, but at the end of the day I think it's hard to generalize what role a specific IE takes in a given person's psyche into anything overly symmetric (e.g. taking TiNe as starting point, and then deducing the superego, id, superid entirely from that).

Yeah I'm not sure if all those speculative refined differences can be shown experimentally but a more basic and robust draft of the model is something I can see working. So far, anyway. And it would have to be based on some other principles too that I don't see contained within the official socionics model... if you are interested we could discuss that on chat

Whatever was the stuff you were saying about how Si can take on different roles outside the ego, I don't dispute any of that. My example may not have been ideally suited to illustrate the general point precisely because it could be that the flaw I was pointing out resulted from other bad assumptions people make..but it certainly can arise in part from the particular kinds of issues I was pointing out. The example was more a jeer than really my point -- you know how often I given examples

Yeah I get what you mean.

[chemical]

Well we think differently there. What's the point of conceptualizing stuff if it's not done inside a nice structured framework?

Well I was getting at the general issue many intuitives might have with going too model-specific with definitions, because the thing is, if I can conceptualize the IE naturally in another way, why not? That's sort of the attitude that might creep in. Or at least, it's not that they'd be against having model-specific definitions so much as they might be interested in a more exhaustive coverage of the possible definitions. At least I know I'd be.

Now my personal solution never was to not analyze the structure inherent to a particular way of looking at the IE -- I end up looking at a lot of cross-system similarities and differences as you no doubt must have noticed. I could see a ILI (especially more intuitive variety) approach leaning more of a sort of fluid look at the IE -- keeping the intuition in mind, and describing Te-fashion how it looks in particular situations. Less interested in pinning down the full structure inherent to any particular way of looking at the IE definitions.

[chemical]

More or less my entire point here in tl;dr fashion is that I think there's something to model A, in that it's capturing certain fundamental dynamics... I just want to pinpoint what exactly it's modeling.

I know more or less for certain that it's not true that people's IE *need* to take those roles. But it's possible that, when someone is in say a TiSe "mode," the other IE could be conceptualized to be performing in something like the model A positions.
OTOH the point is people probably have many modes out there (some more fundamental than others), where different types of consciousness are prioritized, and if we try to squeeeeeze all those into being explained by model A, I think it can become unrealistic.

I think as long as one restricts model A to being applied only to the "main" modes, so to speak, it might work fine. Otherwise I find anything that aims to pin down all 8's roles based solely on the roles of 2 all too speculative.

Like as a simple example, Jung describes how Nietzsche entered both Ni and Ti oriented modes...I'm not sure I'm comfortable explaining that away using beta-IEI or something. It seems more likely we should treat those phases as separate types of consciousness. Note that I'm not going to assume one of those was Ti, since Jung's idea of introverted thinking in PT doesn't always correspond well to what we call Ti I think.

My thoughts on the whole attitude of the auxiliary thing aren't exactly terminated, but nowadays my sense is that when people really have 2 things in the same dominant attitude, it seems both true to Jung and true to experience that they're closer to having 2 dominant types/different modes, i.e. their attitude is kind of an admixture of those modes....if within a given mode more than one (perceiving/judging) attains much priority, I think it might actually be for the best to assume something like model A: that is, you have a strong demonstrative but to creatively augment the dominant, the opposite attitude may be necessary. The only other option is the secondary remains in opposite attitude, but mostly unconscious, which is certainly possible

[wacey]

I personally went into that long explanation just because, I tend to be skeptical about too Te-esque uses of socionics. I think socionics was created by Ti-valuing types and it shows, so if a Te-valuing type likes its ideas but wants to shift it to a different manner of use, he/she needs to modify the system.

Basically what this means is the strength of the model is not the raw application of definitions to factual situations. I often say, if one just wants to take an IE like Si and just measure instances of it, those instances will unlikely fit into any model. Like if you just measure instances of comfort-seeking or whatever.
You'll find TONS of logical contradictions if you try to turn this into a factual theory. People who clearly seem to fit NiFe, yet like their comfort. And so on and so forth.

The real strength here is in modeling key structurally meaningful facets of the psyche rather than in exhaustive measurement of facts. I do not think by any stretch that the sum total of one's function-attitude applications/deployments can be captured adequately in the model A type structure. The Ne+Ti perspective on this sum total of deployment activities though is not to record them as they occur, but rather to select a meaningful point whose potentiality a large energetically meaningful share of these deployments are an expression of, and then capture the key structural facets influencing that point.

If you want to get empirical, it just all comes crashing down. People who are forceful in ego suddenly need to be either Ti or Fi ego? WTF, basically. Using an obviously Ti-system in a Te way never ends well, and vice versa.

With enneagram I learned this in the inverse fashion and had to rewrite aspects of it to be more meaningful. It ends up not being exactly the same, but similar enough so that I feel I profited in knowledge.

So if not for practical application, road maps into behaviour, relationships and psyche, then what you are really saying is socionics is purely theoretical? A kind of atomic model that in no way addresses actual cognition and events as they unfold?

Wherein you can't equate a person's information and vital processing as it shapes and forms their behaviour over their lifetime, no patterns emerging from the thousand, thousand, thousand moments of their life, to distinguishable and definable circumstance as is shown to be predicted by socionics?

Well that isn't really new...eventually everyone comes to this conclusion, Chemical, you just happened to do it in your own unique form. Because in all honesty the main question...is socioncs all real...?

has been in vogue on this forum for quite sometime.

[wacey]

I think the nature of polr function slot holds some clue.

Because from my perspective people approach this area of their psyche and the subsequent thought patterns in one of several ways, and not always in the same way at the same time under the same circumstances in their lives.

They either actively ignore, rebel, flaunt, or with depression and/or great disdain wallow in their polr, or alternatively, they tackle it head on as a kind of personal betterment project.

The super ego as a concept created by Freud, later adopted by Jung and elaborated by Aushura in model A portrays this piece of our psyche as playing the critical and moralizing role. Because it is an inert function, this slot represents internalized cultural rules as they are indoctrinated through upbringing and is more or less fixed in our minds. As such, I believe this is one of several reasons our psyches are so easily vulnerable because in a way the super ego is monolithic in that it cannot be changed. Much like the pyramids, once perfectly formed structures are know crumbling relics, the super ego is a set structure that is worn out over the course of our lifetimes.

If these polr function individualized kinds of information are properly administered to children during the course of their upbringing I suspect that the individual grows up with a more solid, stable super ego structure that more realistically over rides the more guttural id functions.

If the child is treated poorly, or subjected to undue and sustained polr hits, then they may develop poorly suited coping mechanisms. These might include negation of polr informational material, or an over zealous inner nag that spills over into their daily lives.

[wacey]

Hi, chemical.
Te-base ENTj types can be fierce questioners of reports about reality, and look for any kind of inconsistencies in descriptions, because they cannot make a plan (Ni) that succeeds in the real world if they do not have verified data from the real world (Se). They really don't care about other people's feelings (Fi) or theory, unless the theory is both proven and can give them an advantage in dealing with the real world. Their method of getting at the truth through intense questioning can make them look like confrontational assholes who doubt your ability to clearly perceive or describe things. In truth, they are just trying to find out if you really, really believe what you said, and whether or not it can be reconciled with what they already know about the situation. If you can convince them that you are right using an argument based on logic and facts, they will respect you. They will completely ignore how loudly you had to shout at them to get your point across, because they only care about the point, not the shouting.

God, AIN"T THIS THE TRUTH, why can't you just listen in the first place? You like seeing me get wound up then disarm me in the next moment to the point of laughing with your stupid charm that could melt a fucking glacier. Goddam ENTjs.

[Adam Strange]

God, AIN"T THIS THE TRUTH, why can't you just listen in the first place? You like seeing me get wound up then disarm me in the next moment to the point of laughing with your stupid charm that could melt a fucking glacier. Goddam ENTjs.

Well, it's because we're assholes. We're just born that way.

I have seen this questioning behavior in other ENTj's (and in myself), and I've seen how most people react to it. As far as I can tell, after talking with others, they see the ENTj's questioning behavior as being stubborn, obnoxious, scary, intolerable, proof of character defects, proof of brain damage, proof that he doesn't trust people, "that's just the way he is, he'll never get better", "who would want to work with that asshole?" and generally makes ENTj's hard to get along with. When all we want is the truth.

What I find so strange is that Duals of every type are wired to think that the behavior of their own Duals may not be exactly normal, but it is exactly what they want.

How's it going, wacey? I thought you self-banned to get away from the craziness for a while. Glad to see you're back.