Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 121 to 136 of 136

Thread: A visual example of Si, Se, Ne and Ni

  1. #121
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    4,170
    Mentioned
    576 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    I'm not saying they were wrong; I'm saying that Socionics stalled in the 80s and it needs to evolve. An additional layer of structure is not a complication; it's progress.......

    a.k.a. I/O
    There are many fields where progress is rapid and then slows to a seeming halt, during which time people debate what it all means.

    Often the impetus for further progress comes from a seemingly unrelated field.

  2. #122
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here are some examples that illustrate the functions (see post 119 or OP):




    A=B, B=C, therefore A=C ... Si- knows that A=B and B=C, so it is not about a relationship between two (or more) letters/objects. Te+ draws a conclusion, i.e. "therefore A=C".

    B=C, therefore A=C ... Ni+ perceives a possible relationship between A and B. Te- speculates that A and B are equal.

    A person observes an interaction between a wife, husband and another woman. The wife is arguing with the woman. Ni- perceives a possible relationship between the woman and the husband. Fe+ speculates that it is probably a sexual relationship.

    Fe+ is also about a relationship, so it doesn't know the most relevant relationship. Te-, on the other hand, knows that A=B is a relevant speculation.

  3. #123
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    856
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    The examples describe outcomes produced by amorphous processes. There are huge limitations on understanding when processes are only identified at a black-box level: whatever produces this particular type of outcome with this type of input gets the same label. The only way to reduce anomalies is to introduce more black-boxes but this will only serve to approximate the real system, not define it......

    a.k.a. I/O

  4. #124
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think you just described ILI in a nutshell, i.e.: they "outline" things with increasing specificity, sometimes to the point of Ptolemaic complexity... like giving every example of what 2+2 doesn't equal. they take a task and proceed by examining all the ways it can fail and create a system essentially of thou shall nots until everything that remains (i.e.: what is still essentially a black box) can't go wrong and then they would say it doesn't matter. the problem is its an extremely inefficient way of approaching some things that can be handled directly with CD Ti. it also requires they orient themselves around a task, and makes them unsociable (general negativism combined with Fe polr). this gives them that sort of disconnected quality because unless they're engrossed in some concrete task they're just sort of floating and they're not exactly getting a lot of invites to do other non work related activities. so they just sort of hang out and bounce ideas around in their head, but its got a more anxious and less relaxed quality to it. Gulenko actually describes Fi as kind of an "anxious" function and in this context im making the comparison between Si and Fi launcher between LII and ILI

  5. #125
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    The examples describe outcomes produced by amorphous processes. There are huge limitations on understanding when processes are only identified at a black-box level: whatever produces this particular type of outcome with this type of input gets the same label. The only way to reduce anomalies is to introduce more black-boxes but this will only serve to approximate the real system, not define it......

    a.k.a. I/O
    You and I have discussed this before. My (and socionists') focus is: What kind of information does a function process? Your focus is: How does a function/cognitive process actually work?

    The big question is whether these definitions cover all kinds of information or not. Socionists tried external/internal, static/dynamic and object/relationship... and failed.

  6. #126
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    Gulenko actually describes Fi as kind of an "anxious" function and in this context im making the comparison between Si and Fi launcher between LII and ILI
    You keep referring to Model G, but nobody knows A) how Gulenko got his dichotomies B) the relationship between the dichotomies and the model C) what kind of energy it is D) how externalities/internalities actually work ... LII's Ti is directed towards society and Ne is not... that makes no sense whatsoever

  7. #127
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    856
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    .........My (and socionists') focus is: What kind of information does a function process? Your focus is: How does a function/cognitive process actually work?..........
    I get repetitive when someone suggests that without knowing how a function actually works, the information that it processes can be predicted. It's somewhat like trying to determine how to properly feed 8 (or more?) unknown, unseen animals by only visually monitoring their combined feces and then labeling each animal according to it's predicted food consumption.

    a.k.a. I/O

  8. #128
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    another problem is they see the world through the pimple on their nose, i.e.: I want to ask petter if he's actually read gulenko, or he's judging gulenko's output entirely based on what I've explained to him about it, he's not really critiquing gulenko even though he purports himself to be. he's actually got only the most attenuated link possible to the actual material he comments on, and yet he believes that to be wholly sufficient in order to draw a conclusion. its more like he's commenting on gulenko vis-a-vis me which makes it more of an empty debate and not a real discussion of socionics itself. it never reaches the underlying subject matter

  9. #129
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    I get repetitive when someone suggests that without knowing how a function actually works, the information that it processes can be predicted. It's somewhat like trying to determine how to properly feed 8 (or more?) unknown, unseen animals by only visually monitoring their combined feces and then labeling each animal according to it's predicted food consumption.

    a.k.a. I/O
    You don't have to know how a function works in order to know what kind of information it processes. For example, there is obviously a cognitive function/process that determines the relative size of objects. This description is itself a certain kind of information. The actual process of weighing/evaluating also "produces" information, which is unknown to us. But that information is irrelevant.

  10. #130
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    um yeah but its also obvious by definition so you're not really adding anything unless you can roll that into something more than a collection of obvious facts

  11. #131
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    -

  12. #132
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    gulenko is literally the most prolific socionist

  13. #133
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    gulenko is literally the most prolific socionist
    But that doesn't mean he is right.

  14. #134
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    um yeah but its also obvious by definition so you're not really adding anything unless you can roll that into something more than a collection of obvious facts
    We are trying to distinguish between 8 different kinds of information. That is not an obvious task... socionists have tried hard but failed.

  15. #135
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    But that doesn't mean he is right.

    good thing that wasn't my argument

  16. #136
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    another problem is they see the world through the pimple on their nose, i.e.: I want to ask petter if he's actually read gulenko, or he's judging gulenko's output entirely based on what I've explained to him about it, he's not really critiquing gulenko even though he purports himself to be. he's actually got only the most attenuated link possible to the actual material he comments on, and yet he believes that to be wholly sufficient in order to draw a conclusion. its more like he's commenting on gulenko vis-a-vis me which makes it more of an empty debate and not a real discussion of socionics itself. it never reaches the underlying subject matter

    Yes, I have read Gulenko and he doesn't make any sense.

    "Any self-regulatory activity involves at least 4 steps: goal definition, implementation, input(collecting the data) and output (presentation of the result).

    In socionics, the minimalist model has 4 blocks as well. Let's take a better look.

    Block 1: the government of the psyche, in charge of setting goals and making decisions
    Block 2: execution of the decisions made at stage 1
    Block 3: result presentation
    Block 4: (the most sensitive) new data input/ collecting the feedback"

    LII has Ti/Ne... then Ni/Fe (!?) ... "Mission: to contribute to socion showing their specialization".

    He ignores the fact that Ti and Ne are static functions, and Ni and Fe are dynamic functions (in Socionics).

    Another big problem is that Ti/Ne doesn't make decisions. Otherwise a person would make four different kinds of decisions (Te, Ti, Fe and Fi). But we don't... we do four evaluations but make one decision.

    A third problem is that we don't see Ni/Fe in LII. IEI's mystical insights completely contradict LII's clarity.

    Last edited by Petter; 09-18-2018 at 06:51 AM. Reason: '...and Fi' instead of '...and Te'

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

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