Is there any research on the blocks?

[domr]

I want more information on how functions work together in pairs in the blocks.

e.g. TiSe creates institutions (bureaucracy).

[Singu]

Er, logic has to do with sensory information... and therefore, bureaucracy. Or something.

[Exodus]

It's a complicated subject. It seems to me that the relationship between the elements is clarified when you move to a 16-element model.

[Singu]

Se scans the environment for physical objects. Ti creates logic systems. Together that block creates institutions or systems to process the physical world. Best example is the legal system.
If Se is the accepting function then the person cares more about observing the world while if Ti is the accepting function then the person cares about processing the world more.

I want to see if there is research on the other blocks.

Yes, exactly. Therefore, bureaucracy. I'm a genius.

[Singu]

I have no intention of getting into a troll war with you. If you don't want to be respectful and/or contribute value then please leave.

Well, there probably is some sort of truth to it.

It is a curious thing, that people claim that Socionics is "not supposed to be science or exact", but when it comes down to it, then it actually is trying to be science, by saying that you can discover certain "laws" or "trends" or "patterns", which can be used to "predict" events.

So obviously, it does not necessarily imply that Ti Se will always lead to bureaucracy, as Ti Se can potentially lead to anything. It is rather that bureaucracy merely arose out of certain necessities of maintaining order in an organization or an institution or a society. But there is no such "law" or "trend". Could you have predicted before bureaucracy was invented, that bureaucracy would arise from Ti Se? No. Just as you can't predict any future developments from Ti Se.

[Bertrand]

I like to think of bureaucracy as arising out of a sadistic urge for petty control, its usually some form of revenge for being born ugly. since it arises out of ugliness it can never really become something its not, which is to say no one who wasn't already twisted has ever described a bureaucracy as a thing of beauty. re approaching a baseline status via a bureaucracy would be an astounding success. its like making a frankenstein that can pass, a kind of God-playing but by civil servants, you'd have to be approaching from below to mistake it for progress

[Singu]

I like to think of bureaucracy as arising out of a sadistic urge for petty control, its usually some form of revenge for being born ugly. since it arises out of ugliness it can never really become something its not, which is to say no one who wasn't already twisted has ever described a bureaucracy as a thing of beauty. re approaching a baseline status via a bureaucracy would be an astounding success. its like making a frankenstein that can pass, a kind of God-playing but by civil servants, you'd have to be approaching from below to mistake it for progress

I like to think that you are crazy, and possibly in a state of a mental breakdown.

I just don't understand how can anyone write this kind of sociopathic Nietzschian breakdown, but then again Nietzsche did actually have a mental breakdown.

[Singu]

3. I believe that the trend/law of SiTe is bureaucracy. You explained why as well. Se samples reality and observes all possibly elements. Ti wants to model the interaction of these elements, to create a logical system. The result is intuitions aka bureaucracy. Departmentalization: all Se objects have a proper path through the Ti framework.

But why? Could you have looked at some people in a primitive society, and since there are some people who tend to be logical and territorial, they would lead to bureaucracy? But you would only know that in hindsight, because you're already aware of bureaucracy in the present.

In the future, there is going to be something that's even better than bureaucracy, which is a system without any of the flaws of the current bureaucracy. But since we haven't even conceived of it yet, we have no idea what it is, we'll need to invent completely new labels and categorizations which are not Ti Se or even any of the functions. So how would we analyze this "Bureaucracy 2.0"?

If you say that bureaucracy is a trend/law of the TiSe, then in the future, this will only suppose that there will be just a bigger version of bureaucracy. But just as you couldn't have predicted in a primitive society that bureaucracy would arise, if you try to "predict" a primitive society through analyzing the pattern of TiSe, then it will just be a bigger version of this primitive society, without any progress. You would say that the future of TiSe in a primitive society would only ever be conceived of bludgeoning people with clubs.

[Singu]

Strawman arguement(s). It's a waste of time for me to respond.

Look, I don't know you and I've only communicated with you in this thread, 4 posts, and my initial impression of you is that you area very immature / undeveloped person. First the trolling, now the strawmans. I'd love to respond and have a conversation with you but that's not possible if you keep operating at such a low level. Let me ask you a question, you have been on here for nearly 10 years, how much have you grown in that time? My hypothesis is close to 0.

Rofl, those are all completely legitimate points. Your rebuttal? "You are very immature/undeveloped" "strawman". Replying with ad hominems, wow, seriously? You have raised no points whatsoever.

Again, it is such a curious thing, when people around here talk with others, they're projecting themselves onto others.

[Singu]

"ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue"

And no your points weren't legitmate. You didn't address anything I said and went strawman about primitive societies and the future.

You said: "I believe that the trend/law of SiTe is bureaucracy." This would imply that this trend/law would continue onto the future. A law is an UNCHANGING VARIABLE.

[Singu]

Key word there. That was your misinterpretation. I didn't do any sort of theoretical future speculation. The reason I didn't do that was because this is only 1 variable, predicating the future requires makes multiple assumptions, in other words multiple variables.

Alright, then what would be the point of finding any trends and laws? It's so you can make things more predictable, obviously. It's like you don't even understand the point of finding laws and trends.

[Singu]

Trends and even laws are not universal. When you use deductive logic, your model has constraints and it has a domain for the inputs or range for the outputs. And when you are modeling, or making predictions, then you need to make choices are about to include in your model and what assumptions to make when you have missing data. The result is that your output is only valid for a certain set of criteria. You don't understand this.

Then you couldn't have possibly predicted that Ti Se would lead to bureaucracy. Therefore, you can't even say that bureaucracy exactly had to do with Ti Se.

I'm sure you think highly of yourself and you might even be really intelligent but your logic is blatantly underdeveloped and you could use some classes that stress logical rigor.

Speak for yourself. I don't claim to be super intelligent, but these are just really common and basic knowledge, as well as elementary logic. You don't need to know very complicated logic or rigor to even understand these things.

[Singu]

Yeah, sure, and what exactly is your objective? It's like you just want to categorize bureaucracy as Ti Se, and then what? It's like your curiosity of pointlessly categorizing things has been satisfied, and you're going to look for more things to categorize (never mind even being able to understand its logic or causality). You totally don't even understand the point of what you're actually doing.

There's just no coherency or logic to any of these categorizations.

The question is, in under what conditions would bureaucracy arise or occur? It can't be just Ti Se, or bureaucracy would magically occur in primitive societies. So it has to be a mixture of many societal ingredients and progressions. It can't be said that bureaucracy is merely the result or the logical progression of Ti Se.

If you could explain, in under what conditions would bureaucracy would occur, then you would have indeed found some sort of a law or a trend.

Otherwise, it's just: Ti and Se. Therefore, bureaucracy. It's just air-headed and magical thinking without any thought put into it whatsoever.