I think in text. It's good enough.
I think in text and it's bullshit.
I'm Visual. Makes things a bit difficult, but it'll do.
Visual. Text is pretentious. Abstracts are a meme.
I tend towards pure abstracts, but no one else will know the difference.
Fuckin plebs. Abstract Master Race, bitch.
. . . except that I was replying to her, and you misinterpreted both what she said and my response. If there was no socionics context in what she said re. her dynamic viewpoint, then there also couldn't have been any socionics context in my reply to what she said.Originally Posted by Myst
Yes dynamic is moving. Nobody said it was "crazy" - you added that in on your own to have something to argue with.
Her post also missed the point of using the wheel thing for time intervals. Yes, it's easy to imagine primary school, the settling of the Wild West, a bunch of knights, or prehistoric creatures without it, but that's isolated and not very concrete. It's easy to think about what it feels like for a minute to pass, or a second, or an hour, but getting to years, decades, and millennia is abstract since even if you experience 10 years passing, you're not really connecting it the same way you'd think of a period of a few minutes as a whole. The wheel thing is just something that comes up to connect things, and I just ended up refining it and using it prominently after trying to think about really abstract things like how you get from Proto-Indo-Europeans to you and me living our lives personally. It's like making a larger-scale clock, really. And the same way you don't think of seconds ticking when you conceptualize hours, you don't think of seconds ticking when you conceptualize this, so I'm not sure how it's Ne to think about time "top-down" like that (in some senses, yes, but everyone uses all the functions sometimes anyways). "Zooming in/out" of time happens regardless of socionics being "real" or anything within socionics and if Ni doesn't relate to that, I'm not sure what it's supposed to relate to (along with symbols and apprehension, but that goes against Jung because it's turn pattern-recognition-ish there).
I'm also not sure how "internal technology" isn't Ti. I think of how people get faster at running as a collective over decades, or better at playing complicated piano music, and things like that and think of that like Ti, vs. Te is like building faster cars or writing down information so you don't have to remember it. That just didn't get addressed.
thinking is internal technology in general. your characterization of Te is kind of lol. Te is starting from the other end when approaching a topic via thinking. i.e. from the facts, the knowns, the presumed conclusion or consequence, and logically assessing it from that point of view, whereas Ti begins from the ground up, the subjective understanding. they have an interplay where developing one side informs the other and what we have to show from that is knowledge which can be used as technology
the logical application of an idea as a given can be considered a Te approach, but there may very well be no idea to begin with without Ti
i actually feel like at the broadest possible level any information aspect in the creative position can be used as technology, in the sense of "technology" being any product that functions to accomplish some goal. internal ones being really abstract like LIE's Ni... i really like Reinin's description of it. but basically to me its like "selling yourself on an idea (of your own imagining)" you can think of Jack as altering his internal state (the idea is not necessarily a plan, but more like an alternative reality) and manifesting it in order to do something extreme. this could be like living off of frogs in the amazon, with the accompanying mental state required in order to accomplish that. "getting really into it" seems to be a function of creative Ni and is no less a form of internal technology. its like a flow state analogous to Si but different, more abstract, more ideological in the general not necessarily political sense. hamlet sells this too in the ethical sphere. in the end Ti or Te could be "internal technology" just like any function im thinking depending on how its formulated, which really relates back to creative functions (although anyone can do more primitive forms of it, creatives are the ones that push the horizon)
in this way balzac is selling new "methods" "schemes" "fundamental developments [1]" or forms of Te, whereas Jack is selling entirely new ways of being (oriented at goals)... we might call that leadership in a nutshell (it gets dumbed down into "management" just like the rest of Te gets short shrifted in general)
if you want to see an entirely new man look to jack or hamlet, if you want an entirely new theory balzac
[1] think of like niels bohr quantum theory.. starting from facts that Ti could not fully explain, etc
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-15-2017 at 04:51 AM.
How about you stop and think it through before you post your assumption that it had to be me who misunderstood something. You admittedly easily miss the main point of things anyway by your own self-typing too. I at least don't jump the gun by so quickly assuming that it had to be the other party only. Ask first to get more info on what I meant. Keep this fair, seriously.
So. Where I said there is no socionics context in her post I was referring to a different part of her post (on time). Simple as that.
This is a ridiculously personal take on what I said and on my motivations, and it's completely off.Nobody said it was "crazy" - you added that in on your own to have something to argue with.
I don't have any patience left with that tendency of yours anymore.
Essentially, if only you could keep things impersonal where I was not making anything personal originally, there would be no issues with our discussions. End of story.
Get it into your head finally that when I comment on posts, it's not about you personally. I basically have zero feelings towards you personally, even though it does piss me off when you get so needlessly personal in your responses.
My word usage of "crazy" was simply to emphasize the constant motion bit. Nothing more, nothing less. Clear?
Nah, I simply didn't comment on that part of your post. Again, the post of mine on the "crazy constant motion" was not a response to your post at all.
Isolated in what sense?Yes, it's easy to imagine primary school, the settling of the Wild West, a bunch of knights, or prehistoric creatures without it, but that's isolated and not very concrete.
It is abstract, yes. I don't have a problem with that. It's fascinating to me.It's easy to think about what it feels like for a minute to pass, or a second, or an hour, but getting to years, decades, and millennia is abstract
No, it's not the same way, but I don't see why it even should be the same way.since even if you experience 10 years passing, you're not really connecting it the same way you'd think of a period of a few minutes as a whole.
I was commenting on the "music thing" with the Intuition/Static Intuition categorization.The wheel thing is just something that comes up to connect things, and I just ended up refining it and using it prominently after trying to think about really abstract things like how you get from Proto-Indo-Europeans to you and me living our lives personally. It's like making a larger-scale clock, really. And the same way you don't think of seconds ticking when you conceptualize hours, you don't think of seconds ticking when you conceptualize this, so I'm not sure how it's Ne to think about time "top-down" like that (in some senses, yes, but everyone uses all the functions sometimes anyways). "Zooming in/out" of time happens regardless of socionics being "real" or anything within socionics and if Ni doesn't relate to that, I'm not sure what it's supposed to relate to (along with symbols and apprehension, but that goes against Jung because it's turn pattern-recognition-ish there).
I just saw a load of Intuition in your post, way more than Ti analysis, but I did say that you can clarify further as to which bits you thought of as Ti.I'm also not sure how "internal technology" isn't Ti. I think of how people get faster at running as a collective over decades, or better at playing complicated piano music, and things like that and think of that like Ti, vs. Te is like building faster cars or writing down information so you don't have to remember it. That just didn't get addressed.
@Myst
Well, having things be less abstract is useful if you really need/want to think about them. Instead of thinking about how things logically must be, you can just think about how they are from experience. Everything that's useful about it is probably not useful in a TiSe way, but this is basically the gist of it:
The benefit is sort of abstract but it basically amounts to anchoring to me. It's easier to mess up abstract rules than just relating things from personal experience. It's also fun to just mentally experience and feel things you never could in real life, and related to the anchoring, it makes it more obvious what should be salient in ways I don't think any system of rules can be (or at least, it'll lag behind given constraints of existing. I have actual stories on this, not just "should"s).
OK.
Also, I meant the idea of "internal technology" (making more techniques to run faster or be better at playing music or learning things) as Ti. It's like if someone makes a physics equation that's Ti, and if someone uses that to make a vehicle that's Te, or if someone memorizes a list that's Ti, but if someone writes it down that's Te. A long-ish time back I thought everyone's in a disbalance towards Te just driving cars and using the Internet and eating weird food and no one knows how that's going to work and peoples' memories and attention spans are getting shorter, they don't know as much, etc. and it's going to burn out through some unforeseen consequence. Basically, people putting thoughts out there so they don't have to think them, like reading a whole 300-page-book but forgetting that you've ever read it until you happen to see the cover again years later. All the old Homeric poetry and things like that from oral cultures was done to remember things and that's Ti (it wasn't just because the Greeks really liked poetry), then putting things in a book so you don't have to is Te. But being able to find the proper book is Ti in itself, so the most useful thing to do is use both.
Eh going by that, to me numbers are abstract and concrete at once if that makes sense. Concrete in the sense that I have a very strongly felt sense of them, almost tangible, and abstract in the sense they are not pointing directly to specific examples like in your examples.
Jung used the qualifier "abstract" for strong functions, so those abstractions are strongly rooted in very well discerned or perceived experience but yet the cognitive information of the strong "abstract" function is abstracted away from single instances of the experiences, without needing to focus on the specific instances too much. It would be a step back towards shortsightedness if the strong "abstract" function was to focus on each single instance. What I've just said about my sense of numbers is like that. I'm sure there are also things for you where you have this kind of well-anchored abstraction going on.
Make sense?
I don't really equate specific things like this with IEs. Unless the specific thing is truly specific to the IE in question, there being absolutely no way for multielemental, so to speak, access to the thing. The information for many things can be accessed and processed by more than one IE. Many tasks can be solved by more than one cognitive approach. And so on.Also, I meant the idea of "internal technology" (making more techniques to run faster or be better at playing music or learning things) as Ti. It's like if someone makes a physics equation that's Ti, and if someone uses that to make a vehicle that's Te, or if someone memorizes a list that's Ti, but if someone writes it down that's Te. A long-ish time back I thought everyone's in a disbalance towards Te just driving cars and using the Internet and eating weird food and no one knows how that's going to work and peoples' memories and attention spans are getting shorter, they don't know as much, etc. and it's going to burn out through some unforeseen consequence. Basically, people putting thoughts out there so they don't have to think them, like reading a whole 300-page-book but forgetting that you've ever read it until you happen to see the cover again years later. All the old Homeric poetry and things like that from oral cultures was done to remember things and that's Ti (it wasn't just because the Greeks really liked poetry), then putting things in a book so you don't have to is Te. But being able to find the proper book is Ti in itself, so the most useful thing to do is use both.
So, "internal technology", again multielemental.
One more comment here. No, people do utilize Ti too, in ways you didn't seem to think of, for some behavioural rules, for example. It's not just Te all day with "mindlessly" using objects without understanding much about them.A long-ish time back I thought everyone's in a disbalance towards Te just driving cars and using the Internet and eating weird food and no one knows how that's going to work
Btw, one last note on the approach of using cycles of events/clocks/wheel/etc for feeling time... I think my felt sense of time for the long periods comes from a sense of all the main events having played out and them indicating elapsed time periods in themselves already, then those main events can be broken down to other events further and so on. So I don't need to imagine any analogies for motion/wheels/etc. I dunno what this is in my case but it works.
Fuck off asshole. You're always seeking an argument with me after multiple times saying you'd stop quoting me. So, why the fuck don't you follow through and actually do what you've said you'd do.
Some interesting links that I think add to this discussion and clarify abstraction for those who are scratching their heads (it happens). I have not forgotten that there are some questions to respond to here. I will soon.
These quotes are from a pdf. I tried to clean them up a bit so they would be easier to read. It pasted as one huge paragraph with typos. I may have missed something but you can read the full article that I linked.
What are the antecedents of abstraction?
Several situational factors influence whether people think in more concrete or more abstract terms. As noted earlier, when people have to respond to psychologically distant things (e.g., experiences in the distant future, hypothetical experiences), they engage in abstraction as a way to broaden their mental horizons so that they can traverse the psychological distance (Trope & Liberman, 2010, 2012; also see Epstude & Peetz, 2012).
Affective experiences also alter people’s level of abstraction; a positive mood has been shown to promote abstraction (e.g., Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Gasper & Clore, 2002; but also see Huntsinger, Clore, & Bar-Anan, 2010).
Finally, people describe positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors in more abstract, invariant terms than negative ingroup and positive outgroup behaviors. This implies that people can use abstraction to protect self-esteem (Maass, 1999; Maass, Salvi, Arcuri, & Semin, 1989; also see Campbell & Sedikides, 1999; Miller & Ross, 1975).
Some variables have a more complex relationship with abstraction. For example, on the one hand, people think more abstractly when they have more expertise dealing with things (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987, 1989; see also Hinds et al., 2001; Wicklund, Braun, & Waibel, 1994).
On the other hand, expertise also pushes the basic level at which people think about things to a more concrete level (Tanaka & Taylor, 1991). To illustrate, a dog expert may typically think at the level of specific breeds rather than at the broader level of dog.
What are the major consequences of abstraction?
Abstraction has consequences across a variety of phenomena. For example, abstraction has been shown to shift people’s time perspective, because it presumably allows people to take into account psychologically distant things (Liberman, Trope, McCrea, & Sherman, 2007).
This in turn has been shown to improve personal outcomes in domains such as creativity (e.g., Förster, Friedman, & Liberman, 2004; Jia, Hirt, & Karpen, 2009; Liberman, Polack, Hameiri, & Blumenfeld, 2012), self-control (e.g., Fujita & Han, 2009; Fujita & Roberts, 2010; Fujita, Trope, et al., 2006), and life satisfaction (e.g., Updegraff & Suh, 2007).
Moreover, abstraction has been shown to have positive as well as negative effects on personal outcomes in the health domain. On the one hand, abstraction has been shown to help people deal with mood problems (e.g., Ayduk & Kross, 2009; Kross
Ayduk, & Mischel, 2005; Mergenthaler, 1996). On the other hand, abstraction has been shown to promote certain biases in health risk perceptions (e.g., a patient underestimates the likelihood that she is having a heart attack because her symptoms are not typical; Reyna, 2004) and to be positively associated with the severity of symptoms in obsessive-compulsive disorder (Dar & Katz, 2005).
Abstraction also has interpersonal consequences. Specifically, higher levels of abstraction are associated with more stereotyping (e.g., Brewer & Gardner, 1996; McCrea, Wieber, & Myers, 2012) and dispositional attributions of others (Kozak, Marsh, & Wegner, 2006; McIntyre, Paulson, Lord, & Lepper, 2004).
In the realm of social influence, abstraction seems to foster both resistance to persuasion by decreasing the impact of contextual information (e.g., incidental strangers’ opinions) on people’s beliefs (e.g., Ledgerwood et al., 2010) as well as openness to persuasion by increasing the impact of more cross-situational information (e.g., consensus opinion; Ledgerwood & Callahan, 2012) on people’s beliefs.
Furthermore, abstraction has consequences for social conflict, because it has been shown to facilitate cooperative problem solving and beneficial negotiations (e.g., Giacomantonio, De Dreu, & Mannetti, 2010; Henderson, 2011; Henderson & Trope, 2009).
In summary, abstraction enables people to broaden their mental horizons, which has consequences for a variety of important judgments, decisions, and behaviors. In the next section, we examine the various methods for studying abstraction.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...bstraction.pdf
~~~~
Moving on... I experience flow states often, like when I am driving, but also when I am just sitting doing nothing. It does not feel like hyperfocus to me at all. I have experienced hyperfocus before and this is different. It is an overall positive experience for me. I get a lot of insights in the "zone". I don't recall much verbal thinking during. The words come after but not always.
Sometimes it is just for me, nothing I need to share with anyone else. There was a study done on athletes in the flow state which I think helps explain to me how a sensor, for example, can also experience these states in a different way than me. While reading the article I put myself in "their" situation to feel what it must be like. It was pretty cool even if I can't possibly get the full experience in the same way. I know @Myst is an athlete so might find it interesting. If you want to share what a flow state feels like you can here or pm.
Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Optimal Experience: The Flow State Scale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)In positive psychology, flow, also known as the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does and loses sense of space and time.
Named by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, the concept has been widely referenced across a variety of fields (and has an especially big recognition in occupational therapy), though the concept has existed for thousands of years under other guises, notably in some Eastern religions.[1] Achieving flow is often colloquially referred to as being in the zone.
Flow shares many characteristics with hyperfocus. However, hyperfocus is not always described in a positive light. Some examples include spending "too much" time playing video games or getting side-tracked and pleasurably absorbed by one aspect of an assignment or task to the detriment of the overall assignment. In some cases, hyperfocus can "capture" a person, perhaps causing them to appear unfocused or to start several projects, but complete few.
Edit: On Locus of Control tests my results are more internal than external. I am looking for a good test now that I can post to psychology. Some of them just suck.The autotelic personality
Csíkszentmihályi hypothesized that people with several very specific personality traits may be better able to achieve flow more often than the average person. These personality traits include curiosity, persistence, low self-centeredness, and a high rate of performing activities for intrinsic reasons only. People with most of these personality traits are said to have an autotelic personality.[10] The term “autotelic” is acquired from two Greek words, auto, meaning self, and telos meaning goal. Being Autotelic means having a self-contained activity, one that is done not with the expectation of some future benefit, but simply to experience it as the main goal.[23]
At this point, there is not much research on the autotelic personality, but results of the few studies that have been conducted suggest that indeed some people are more prone to experience flow than others. One researcher (Abuhamdeh, 2000) found that people with an autotelic personality have a greater preference for "high-action-opportunity, high-skills situations that stimulate them and encourage growth" compared to those without an autotelic personality.[10] It is in such high-challenge, high-skills situations that people are most likely to enter the flow state.
Experimental evidence shows that a balance between skills of the individual and demands of the task (compared to boredom and overload) only elicits flow experiences in individuals characterized by an internal locus of control[24] or a habitual action orientation.[25] Several correlational studies found need for achievement to be a personal characteristic that fosters flow experiences.[26][27][28]
Last edited by Aylen; 07-15-2017 at 04:36 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Simple: you said I can quote you again. Before that I wasn't quoting you directly and I was keeping to that. And, I'm the asshole when you were the one who went personal?... And I already told you how I meant the "crazy" wording. It wasn't "seeking an argument with you". So calm down really.
Anyway. In future I again won't quote you directly. If I do comment on something in general, without making any references to you and you still take it personally, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that part. That is totally up to you to stop misunderstanding my intentions.
@Aylen "Flow" as an idea tends to be sort of a problem: https://aeon.co/essays/the-true-expe...ffortless-flow
Given how little psychology seems to know, psychological prescriptivism tends to be like dietary fads but worse to me, and I love it when people call it out.
I actually did a paper on this at uni.
As for my own experience with it, well, it's very familiar with ability for immersion, especially the feeling of energized focus with full involvement. That's really how I am much of the time. The part on it being a "self-contained" activity doesn't entirely fit, I do usually have some other goal with it too that I'm working for, it can even be a longer term goal. That however doesn't remove my ability to be in the moment with the focus and involvement.
Yeah, I know about that concept. I've got a very internal locus of control, too.Edit: On Locus of Control tests my results are more internal than external. I am looking for a good test now that I can post to psychology. Some of them just suck.
Did you read the whole article I linked or did you immediately look for something to contradict it?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Flow is talked about and taught at universities.
You can find articles tearing into socionics / MBTI in far more lethal ways.
Doer: 75%
Analyst: 88%
Orator: 25%
Inventor: 100%
Original Thinker: 88%
@Aylen Yes, but did you read mine? The flow article you linked has all the issues I posted, and mostly it's just referencing the inventor of the concept.
Of course not. I wanted to know if you had read the pdf and not just the wiki before wasting my time. I am assuming you have not been aware of experiencing a state flow by the fact that you looked for something to contradict it, probably before reading it. I will read your article after I have coffee.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
The article Wyrd posted isn't bad, and you may enjoy it. It's focused more on the grit aspects of becoming very good at something. The author however cites Malcolm Gladwell as a misinformed proponent of flow, but must not have read his Outliers book where he talks about focused, deliberate practice being the way people achieve greatness, which is also what the author supports. I don't think that focused deliberate practice and great concentration on a task and a state of flow are at all opposed to each other, even though the author does pose them that way.
I think her main issue is with the description of effortlessness in flow, as though everything must come easily. I don't think the flow state is necessarily effortless, it's just seamless - as in you are so in-tune with your every action that it flows together, and it is a focused concentrated state. It's operating at prime efficiency, where practice, focus, and state of mind all meet in the middle.
Thanks for the summary. I wasn't feeling like reading it just yet but I wanted to since she read what I linked. I will later. I agree with your idea of it being seamless. I know that the areas I can achieve flow state are actually areas I have had a lot of practice in, years of practice.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Don't see how the definition in the pdf posted by @Aylen implies any magical effortlessness: "Flow is an intrinsically enjoyable state and is accompanied by an order in consciousness whereby the person experiences clarity of goals and knowledge of performance, complete concentration, feelings of control, and feelings of being totally in tune with the performance."
Strawman, imo. The point of the flow concept is precisely that the requirements of the situation should not be too low (or too high, either*) compared to your skill level. So it's clearly not about the magical effortlessness. When it's the optimal level of challenge with a good sense of control is when you experience flow according to the theory and I do experience it in that way. Otoh, I don't agree with how it being intrinsically rewarding must be incompatible with future benefits. (I know there are studies on this, independent of the flow studies btw - but I think this phenomenon may be dependent on the individual...)
*: Whoever wrote that article that you linked may have been talking about a state where the requirements are set a little bit too high, in terms of the experience he/she's had when performing. With a bit of neurotic perfectionism.
Oh also the article's assumption about "Perhaps flow draws us in because we generally dislike hard work". I really see it as ridiculous to generalize to all people like this. Maybe the writer of the article was drawn by in a misunderstood concept for that reason but that doesn't say much about other people. The article Aylen linked to talked about hard working athletes experiencing flow...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
