Personal experience is called empiricism aka the scientific method. It can be a good arguement but only when the person has really honed their hypothesis otherwise you can prove anything with empiricism.Originally Posted by squark
Ne is about discarding reality. Ne doesn't see the box, it sees the possibility of the jack in the box. I would say this is half of Ne. The other half is abstractions such as numbers. Ne can generate ideas or virtualize reality.
Sampling Bias. You are sampling immature, i.e. not actualized, IEEs. NeFe is about creating a moral framework (Fi) based on virtual reality (Ne), and the word virtual comes from virtues, which are imaginary traits that people so to make ethical decisions. Hence FiNe is virtual ethics. A mature NeFi person will be categorizing everyone based on how virtuous they are. In contrast an immature NeFi user will be running away from virtues. I assume most people in western society are not learning the 4 cardinal virtues so it'll be difficult to find good IEEs and EIIs to sample hence the bias you are seeing toward immature users.
it's the perfect example of this
Yes, most people are immature.Most people are immature.
Your view of Delta NFs is overly idealistic.
No, all (mature) Deltas believe in traditional family values i.e. morality e.g. virtues. It's the chief trait of the clique.
I'm sorry but "I once saw a purple dog, so dogs are purple and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong" is not how the scientific method works. Was it even a dog? How's your color vision? Your mental state? Do you have a record of this so-called purple dog? Was it dyed/painted otherwise unnatural? I'm rather tired of people throwing around the word "science" here and there and thinking it means something. Or implying that they have the first clue of what they're talking about, because they generally don't.
Actually it is. Read up on empiricism vs rationalism. You do a test and then you make a conclusion based on that test. You have faith that if you reran the test, you would get the same result. This is the epistemological problem with the scientific method/empiricism. This is the reason why social sciences have a bad rep and the majority of peer reviewed scientific studies in that discipline are false.
I think the idea is you can structure the experiments so as to causally reproduce the results under the same conditions. I think the problem with social sciences is the conditions are almost never really the same. not all empiricism is %100 faith, except in a meaningless sense i.e.: that the laws of causation themselves won't come apart for no reason tomorrow
Yes you can rerun the test multiple times BUT eventually you need to stop running the test and have faith that your did successful measure physics particle X and that you can generalize your findings as a universal truth.
Conditions is 1 problem with social science. There are other problems with statistical analysis (empiricism, scientific method) like sampling bias or confounding variables.
well the problem with statistical truths is that's all they are, and can't really be applied to individuals who are always going to deviate to some degree from the abstraction produced from experiments. in other words, there's no way to ensure if the average weight of a peanut is 1 gram that the first peanut you pick out at random in a jar of 100 will weigh exactly 1 gram. the statistic never really touches the reality it just puts a gloss over it. in mass quantities it functions to produce certain outcomes, but those outcomes are the same statistical generalities as the input. in other words, you can then order 10 jars and charge 1 dollar for each but each peanut you pull out is only worth 1 cent as a consequence of the structure forced on it. its not really worth 1 cent, but its these kind of abstractions that add up to a large economy with lots of "interchangeable" pieces and yet its people playing with the gloss on things, and then reading back into the things themselves the gloss as the reality. in effect the proxy becomes a thing when the system becomes sufficiently large and adopted by enough people. the problem with social sciences is they can't develop the rationalistic gloss that captures the things themselves in a way that doesn't shift underfoot in a way that ultimately ruins the experiment (i.e. reproducibility), because they're not dealing with peanuts they're dealing with people.
its not really a new problem so much as an emergent difficulty though, because to even recognize this is its own form of progress. its like we "created" this problem as a consequence of loftier goals. this idea that the old tests are "invalid" is not true, its not any less than true than Newton's theories prior to Einstein, we still use them as a ladder; one thing that bothers me is this superficial notion that we throw all the old stuff out and start over, its more like we need to develop a method that explains those results and more, not simply develop a new set of results on the basis of taking a step backward by in effect narrowing the scope of the goal with respect to what is real. which is what you see a lot of people leaning toward, they would say something like "the model is not sufficiently reductionist which is why we can't control results" its like yeah, but that's like solving a cutting edge physics question by simply declaring them unreal as a consequence of our inability to solve them. this is not %100 invalid, it may indeed be a consequence of an error in the formulation of the question, but that should produce a paradigm shift that ultimately explains more not less, and it is questionable as to whether this is well understood in the psychological community
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-12-2018 at 02:27 AM.
You mean all conservative Deltas. Not all Deltas are conservative, especially Delta NFs lean typically either liberal or libertarian. What you consider "mature" is your own personal biased view.
I think it depends on what problems you're trying to solve... All science or knowledge creation starts with attempting to solve some problems.
Asking the question, "Are all dogs purple?" is kind of a dumb question, because perhaps all we can say is that such dogs are possible.
Saying "I once saw a purple dog" isn't really answering any question.
So perhaps one of the most interesting question to ask is, "Why is the dog purple?". Then maybe we can start figuring out the answers.
Confounding variables. In today's America you won't find "traditional family values" being taught anywhere expect maybe Catholic churches so most people in general will fall into liberal, especially younger ago. Most people, including Deltas won't know what the virtue means so that'll be a problem for Delta NFs as they will not learn their own philosophy -> less likely to live in agreement with the philosophy. And "conservative" is an umbrella term that lumps together moral majority (delta) with libertarians (gamma). With that said, even if you look at a liberal such as Steven Colbert (EII), he lives a very conservative life that's basically completely inline with traditional family values despite his political views being left.
You familiar with Ehkart Tolle, yeah? I'm thinking part of what his spiritual awakening was about was a intuitive thinker/feeler of some sorts finding for the first time access to the present moment via sensation.
He said that he was lying on a park bench when he clicked out of thoughts and into the now...its a bit cliche and corny now after the whole Oprah book tour.
Essentially: he heard the cars screeching, the sirens, the sound of the wind, the changing lights in the traffic, and he step out of identification with the constant stream of self talk, and saw the physical pain of his pasts as a kind of energetic entity inside himself which had a life of its own... the sounds hit his ear drum..the feeling of the wind on his face..his feet moving beneath him and his volitional abilities freed up...
Its as though he discovered Se: object sensing and could view his life and the events in front of him via this informational element and for him it was so transformative: he awoke to the "bigger me" in a personalized fashion tailored for his own psyche, this present moment which is all that is happening ever.
Anyway, it has confluences with Eastern philosophical traditions and part of the reason people attracted to that message.
Tallmo has him as ILI and I am inclined to agree. He discovered the inner dual, the inner Se of life, and that propelled him into "this". That he wrote about it with clarity in a pain stakenly logical way is also a clue for his type.
The making as more conscious your weak regions is the way to the self integrity, to better understanding of the reality and improvement in your weak regions. It's not "inner dual" as it's not a person, but just some functons of your own mind.
As minimum effect of the better contact with own unconscious _valued_ functions people feel a catharsis, the rise of optimism and self-esteem. Even when this is painful, - this do not supresses, but arises your spirit, makes it more harmonious.
yeah I also think Se is more about knowing when the present power disparity allows you to impose your will, regardless of the wishes of whoever, moreso than merely looking around
Sensing. Just looking around is the first part. Ne does something similar and adds cognitive tangents.
How do you think you can tell what power disparity exists? Magic?
Yes, Se is about physical only, but not about the understanding of not evident like power. Though also Se is the wish of the power and of control upon phisical. The thoughts about hiden or not evident is goten by both N, not Ne only. Ni gives the feeling where and how to apply the power has more perspectives, for example. Ne gives the thoughts about not seen traits of the objects, including influence/power potentials.
Magic is the region of N as it's about the imagination. Other is supportive there.
sensation tells you that something is there, power is a thing. that sol's Se is unconscious to some extent may confuse him into thinking its a form of perception by way of the unconscious and therefore Ne. the effects of power over time or the potential options such power affords would be more intuition. sensation in general is a form of attention to what is there, in that precise moment; I think there is a pernicious extrovert bias that seems to depreciate Si as somehow being less real or somehow out of touch and thus skew most of what belongs to sensation-in-general toward being a property of Se alone. power v comfort does a very good job of keeping the two separate while leaving the commonalities in tact. I honestly think people are just too unsophisticated to see how it accomplishes this in an extremely elegant manner, and just dismiss it because superficially it appears to diverge from Jung. it is actually quite true to Jung. a case of ignorance punching up, if you will
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-13-2018 at 04:59 PM.
Power is sensed. Volitional qualities and object sensing is discreet, as in actual, qualities right? They just see. And just like anyone else they can draw from memory to make a line of best fit action.
It's not sensed by voodoo magic, nor cognition, like a deduction. Otherwise they wouldn't be all that effective-->reality awareness. How to maneuver comes secondary. Although it all happens so fast and fluidly it looks like traditional intuition.
How does a large man walking down the street effect the movement of the people around him? It has to be seen first.
x is bigger than y, as a matter of perception is a form of "knowing." bigger is only a low dimensional form of the same perception, power is the same perception with a higher dimensionality. it is literally x>y across a broad dimension, thats why power is a very general word, it entails a broad scope which is precisely what Se does, not for everyone, but when understood from the outside in the abstract. if we were to limit understanding of functions only to their low dimensional applications it would simply replicate only our own understanding never broaden it. we would essentially be back into personal stereotypes, which is, essentially, how your description of tolle read, which is why I tried to deepen the piece on Se. it goes back to that continual drift into characterizing things as we perceive them and in so doing distort reality for others by reducing it into rational formulations that are adopted, but from the get-go they are ill formed. in other words, you don't have to agree with me, in fact this entire discussion is predicated on a disagreement, but restating the same tired stereotypes doesn't help move things forward. thats the problem with a lot of this heresy talk, whether one uses those specific words or not, its just repeating the same tired errors and saying, on the basis of repetition, it makes it orthodox and therefore better. its overly rational and stultified and you can see it play out all the time here. people need to consider for once that perhaps they don't know it all and that life is not simply a matter of imposing what one already knows on everyone else. there's an opportunity to learn here. consider for a second if when I post I really don't understand the basics of the theory, as if I'm literally a random first time poster, or if perhaps there may be something more to why I'm posting what you think can be corrected with a simple low res recapitulation of what everyone already knows. there's an interesting sort of flattening of the "who" behind the post, as if literally everyone is the exact same know nothing moron, to me that is symptomatic of a projection aimed at the world at large that points back to one's own understanding more than anything. to be fair some of this applies to Sol and some to timber, but my point is one problem with internet discourse, in general, is that people treat it like a monolith which makes it so fertile for projection and failure to be productive in a meaningful sense. it just becomes a vast field of projections without substance. this imposition of will becomes entirely quixotic because the conflict is entirely an illusion of the psyche and the thus so is any progress, it progresses across the most meaningless dimensions. people straw man the opposition, dig in their heels, try to spread their influence, judge it by who parrots who, create an entire drama, the whole thing is total nonsense, no one listens to anyone, and for years people's understanding goes nowhere, all in the name of a theory created with the exact opposite intent
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-13-2018 at 05:19 PM.
lol bertrand, you are not a novice at this. This is not your first rodeo.
I went for the reduced version of Se. All the other stuff stems for there.
Tolle drives a 100,000 dollar luxuary SUV and makes millions from his books while he sits in a multi million dollar mansion in Vancouver, or the ultra-lux Salt Spring Island.
impose your will, regardless of the wishes of whoever
this applies to oneself
Tolle found sensing..there, satisfied?
what I'm trying to point out is that tolle maybe found Se but not because he found sensing, he already understood sensing, that's what blowing my mind, you keep making it sound like he discovered sensing when he was already fully capable of looking around. instead what he realized was he could impose his will. the trucks and shit are just an example of him doing that. his message is about how he imposed it on himself and on the money is just a consequence of him realizing that, writing a book as a consequence of that (the message of the book is the literary realization and that the book got written is the literal realization), making a bunch of money as a consequence of that, and driving a big truck, which is just a manifestation of that in keeping with "bigger = better" (the original discovery in low res language) as a consequence of that. what eckardt tolle discovered was his will, which is sense perception, but not stuff like colors sounds and so forth, that is sensation in general or if anything more Si. so to say stuff like it was the sounds and the sights so to speak is less accurate as to what he discovered and what Se is. what he discovered was force and volition, even as it applies to "making the most of the moment" it is an act of will to do so. its that jumping off point from taking an active rather than passive role with regard to sensation and life in general. a lot of the "dreaminess" is misleading because its not about losing touch with reality, its about realizing that reality is a product of your own initiative to a huge extent.. the flowers and the trees just furnish an occasion for you to "test" that principle by focusing on them, or to put it more broadly, to stop (resist) letting the usual things interfere with the raw perception. letting things in is an act of will in the negative often, resisting pressure to get stressed by rational concerns and so forth. or to simply acknowledge those fears or suspicions you know are going wrong as we speak but you block out, its not [refusing to] blocking them out that is the act of will, its often the default state (reflexively shielding oneself from unpleasant sensations..this is more Si), its forcing yourself to address them that is the act of will in that case (+/-Se)
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-13-2018 at 05:54 PM.
Okay so you are not familiar with his story. He was a pure intellectual, searching for answers via thought process. Graduated from University, got a phd. He became more and more depressed until he was homeless and sleeping on park benches.
His self described awakening involved the realization that life was also sensation, pure sensing, and this moment was all that was. His enlightenment was outside of thoughts and theories and THINKING.
How did he learn he could impose his will? By actually looking with his eyes, whereas before he was looking with his mind.
The skateboarder is silkes picture is seeing the hill and then imposes his will onto the board.
This isn;t just a simplified stereotype, it is a core understanding everyone needs. Like ABCs. Will sensor-onics needs the apparatus, psychical reality, to operate inside.
Well you got to my issue I’m your next post, sample size. Also observation may be an element of the scientific method, or its basis, but it is not the only thing, as you know I’m sure.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Sensation like colours and stuff is equally Si depends on where it goes.
Found it.
I'm not claiming he became Se, just that he found it. Depends on where you park your vocabulary-->fine that its sensing in the a general sense. I think the trucks and the money and the book tour are all a part of the suggestive/hidden adgenda.It feels now as if I am talking about some past lifetime or somebody else’s life.One night not long after my twenty-ninth birthday, I woke up in the early hours with a feeling of absolute dread. I had woken up with such a feeling many times before, but this time it was more intense than it had ever been. The silence of the night, the vague outlines of the furniture in the dark room, the distant noise of a passing train—everything felt so alien, so hostile, and so utterly meaningless that it created in me a deep loathing of the world. The most loathsome thing of all, however, was my own existence. What was the point in continuing to live with this burden of misery? Why carry on with this continuous struggle? I could feel that a deep longing for annihilation, for nonexistence, was now becoming much stronger than the instinctive desire to continue to live.
“I cannot live with myself any longer.” This was the thought that kept repeating itself in my mind. Then suddenly I became aware of what a peculiar thought it was. “Am I one or two? If I cannot live with myself, there must be two of me: the ‘I’ and the ‘self’ that ‘I’ cannot live with.” “Maybe”, I thought, “only one of them is real.” I was so stunned by this strange realization that my mind stopped. I was fully conscious, but there were no more thoughts. Then I felt drawn into what seemed like a vortex of energy. It was a slow movement at first and then accelerated. I was gripped by an intense fear, and my body started to shake. I heard the words “resist nothing,” as if spoken inside my chest. I could feel myself being sucked into a void. It felt as if the void was inside myself rather than outside. Suddenly, there was no more fear, and I let myself fall into that void. I have no recollection of what happened after that.
I was awakened by the chirping of a bird outside the window. I had never heard such a sound before. My eyes were still closed and I saw the image of a precious diamond. Yes, if a diamond could still make a sound, this is what it would be like. I opened my eyes. The first light of dawn was filtering through the curtains. Without any thought, I felt, I knew, that there is infinitely more to light than we realize. That soft luminosity filtering through the curtains was love itself. Tears came into my eyes. I got up and walked around the room. I recognized the room, and yet I knew that I had never truly seen it before. Everything was fresh and pristine, as if it had just come into existence. I picked up things, a pencil, an empty bottle, marvelling at the beauty and aliveness of it all.
That day I walked around the city in utter amazement at the miracle of life on earth, as if I had just been born into this world.
I already no you are all going to say thats Si so whatever. Se is beating people up.
Timber, I get the whole thing about what you're saying, "resist nothing" is a huge part of it. I don't know what the functions are for this kind of consciousness, but it seems a combination of accepting everything and simultaneously choosing for yourself every moment, realizing the power of each moment, your power to choose and accept. That is not overly directing your functions if possible but also choosing the most applicable at the moment. A quote by serge gainsbourg, whom I deeply admire for this exact point discussed, no matter his flaws, "you have to live each moment dangerously". I have noticed a lot of people who have this awareness and really partake in life have had long term illness as children, many people used to have scarlett fever, polio etc, or like gainsbourg grew up a jew under vichy france etc. That is suffering is probably the easiest quickest way to realise this stuff.
I also have a theory about being in the moment, attached to the moment. I think that however much your mother (primary caregiver) is attached/attentive to the infant, that is at the moment the mother attaches/attends her infant, at that moment the infant learns simlutaneiously to attach/attend to the present (how to do it, that is it safe to do it) as well as to themselves. And how much a person is attached/attentive to themselves and the present then flows on to their infant. That is my theory and has been a massive motivator for me (to be present) as I have learnt to mother. that is they are all the one thing self-mother-present moment, and to work on one you need to work on all ( as adults that is attaching/attending your inner parent and making sure that is healthy).
That moment you see an MBTI article stating that an Se ego type (aka "ISFP") is both an "Explorer" and a "Caregiver".
That moment you see an MBTI article stating that an Se ego type (aka "ISFP") is both an "Explorer" and a "Caregiver".
Links?
All 16 types are equally valuable in the same way you'd be dead if you were missing any major anatomical system.
They are. I'll explain later.That moment you see an MBTI article stating that an Se ego type (aka "ISFP") is both an "Explorer" and a "Caregiver".
In Socionics it might make sense if you argue that their Creative Se makes them explorative, and their 4D/Demonstrative Si makes them caretaker-ish. But for most people, it would just be misleading to describe a type like that, if they have no background knowledge.
Big error in typology: attributing qualities without context. Lots of qualities can be shared across different context, so saying type X is A and Z is B isn't often a good way to go.
Attributing qualities is what makes socionics a typology and not behaviorism
yes I think this is without a doubt the biggest single error on popular discussion forums today. people take something that must be derived mainly from context and could manifest from almost any type under the circumstances and use it to "prove" type x or y; ignoring its always a totality of the circumstances that matters, and something they have little to no access to. which is why simply inferring x or y quality on the basis of a small set of data is always highly questionable, not to mention even if sufficient data were submitted to derive a conclusion, people would still have to have a strong enough understanding to link behaviors a to quality z, and thats not something you develop correctly by participating in the aforementioned janky process to begin with. the whole thing spins off into ridiculously subjective personal typologies. it just becomes consulting others about their personal associations and experiences, which is unavoidable to some extent, but its why we have real no-shit experts not just random people from the forums. socionics is not a democratic straw poll conducted on forums despite how often attempts are made to turn it into exactly that
a little synchronistic commentary
https://youtu.be/VUDAdOdF6Zg?t=5022
socionics could in theory become a distributive theory but its not there yet, so when people treat it like one before that point its not effective. in essence you'd have to have the broader population be socionically "literate" and then it could develop on its own with these sort of democratic processes controlling it.. what "distributive theory" in these sorts of terms is really describing is just cultural development itself, but that's precisely the problem, for socionics to ever become scientific it needs those baseline geniuses like darwin and newton and einstein to establish something of substance for the broader society to then chew on for years. otherwise you never have a working prototype to begin with and the whole thing never gets out of the folk-prejudice phase and becomes nothing but localized group think that gets replaced by the first genius who does come along and can present something better resulting from his individual effort.. this is a process that plays out in time, gulenko even talks about it specifically, where he says ILE develops a bold theory and LII makes a working prototype out of it and so forth and then beta puts it into action, and then gamma criticizes and refines it, and delta ends up with an efficient and compact technological manifestation of the thing that was once just an idea. what happens in socionics is you have people from all eras trying to work on the thing according to their disposition but socionics is only at the tail end of alpha right now
Last edited by Bertrand; 09-29-2018 at 05:06 PM.
Yes but the qualities that make a type are abstract qualities that can't be put into words. The big mistake people make is confusing concrete behavior and qualities for those type-defining qualities that are purely abstract. At best, you can use some concrete things as proxies and indirect identifiers, but people mess up when they equate the concrete forms with the abstractions that produce them. That's why people mistype. They think that type A MUST be this way and CAN'T be that way, where way is some concrete behavior. People who are actually doing typology are looking at those abstractions directly and they understand that when they point out certain concrete things, those things are just pointers so they can see the same abstractions. This is how I know when someone is doing real Socionics.
There ARE certain highly reliable concrete cues for different types, but those tend to be so tiny and hard to notice that they get ignored or called coincidence. It's these micro-identifiers that are the key to typing people accurately. The reason people chalk them up to coincidence is that they aren't aware of the unique specificity of those identifiers and they don't see them across a broad array of examples.
If they cant be put into words then what are we talking about exactly
Reply With Quote
