Hidden temperaments

[krieger]

Taking as axiomatic that for any information cycle:

- attributes judgment and perception must alternate
- attributes accepting and creating must alternate
- all conscious functions must share one attribute and all unconscious functions must share it's inverse
- dual seeking functions must have dichotomies rational/irrational and accepting/creating in common and differ on all other dichotomies
- every conscious function must be complemented by it's dual seeking function in the unconscious tract

The temperaments currently know to socionics... (format - shared attribute in all conscious functions: defining attributes of the conscious accepting functions)

I..j - Static: rational, introvert
creNe -> accTi -> creSe -> accFi ->
creSi -> accFe -> creNi -> accTe -> etc.
E..p - Static: irrational, extrovert
accNe -> creTi -> accSe -> creFi ->
accSi -> creFe -> accNi -> creTe -> etc.
E..j - Dynamic: rational, extrovert
creSi -> accFe -> creNi -> accTe ->
creNe -> accTi -> creSe -> accFi -> etc.
I..p - Dynamic: irrational, introvert
accSi -> creFe -> accNi -> creTe ->
accNe -> creTi -> accSe -> creFi -> etc.

...are not the only possible configurations.

Introvert: rational, static (II..j)
creNi -> accTi -> creSi -> accFi ->
creSe -> accFe -> creNe -> accTe -> etc.
Introvert: irrational, dynamic (II..p)
accNi -> creTi -> accSi -> creFi ->
accSe -> creFe -> accNe -> creTe -> etc.
Extrovert: rational, dynamic (EE..j)
creSe -> accFe -> creNe -> accTe ->
creNi -> accTi -> cre Si -> accFi -> etc.
Extrovert: irrational, static (EE..p)
accSe -> creFe -> accNe -> creTe ->
accNi -> creTi -> accSi -> cre Fi -> etc.

Note how this is all based on the similarity between the introvert/extrovert and static/dynamic dichotomies. They are the only dichotomies that are not shared between dual seeking functions and yet do not mess up the diagram when one experiments with them. I neither know if-, nor assert that these are a theoretical possibility. What I know is that if there is a set of function configurations that socionics hasn't discovered yet, these are plausible candidates.

For those of you familiar with Augusta's definitions, please don't stare yourselves blind on her attribution of the word 'field' to the introvert functions. For all we know a 'field' is really just a psychological object and as much a 'node' as anything you find in the outer world. Anything said on the subject would be spawned from belief as no one can have non-subjective knowledge on what any 'function' constitutes.

To conclude, a rethorical question. If these types exist, how would we know? What is to keep us from believing that there are many function configurations that have not been discovered yet?

[aestrivex]

...


...


?

[Not A Communist Shill]

For those of you familiar with Augusta's definitions, please don't stare yourselves blind on her attribution of the word 'field' to the introvert functions. For all we know a 'field' is really just a psychological object and as much a 'node' as anything you find in the outer world. Anything said on the subject would be spawned from belief as no one can have non-subjective knowledge on what any 'function' constitutes.

I agree with this, but I can't figure out the significance of the rest of the post. Fields are like maps, where places are interconnected with each other...objects in the information elements descriptions are the places, or the nodes on the map. These maps exist both in the external world and the internal one - you can 'map' out internal fields on the real world by visualising it in your field of vision, and you can also visualise external objects internally.

[krieger]

'field', 'external' and 'dynamic' are all just technical terms to me. Their meanings are irrepresentable and can only be known through being seen reflected in movements of the world. They are well-defined in dynamics only. (Ne-Si)

Fields are often thought to be maps. Personally I think the map consists of objects on two distinct levels. In normal people these levels are the introverted and extroverted worlds. The point of this thread is to consider the existence of people who see the world as consisting of objects on the levels static and dynamic.

Let's expand this a bit.

If introversion is associated with indirect communication
and extroversion is associated with direct communication

Then a person who lacks extrovert functions may well be incapable of communicating in a direct manner. This should be a very noticable trait. An introvert-deficient person may likewise be unreceptive to any indirect communication, and also incapable of producing such.

Also if introversion is associated with contemplation, wisdom, reservedness
and extroversion is associated with capability, confidence, activity

Then a person who lacks either introversion or extroversion will show a decided lack of positive attributes in the associated area, too.

Anyone know such people?

[aestrivex]

If introversion is associated with indirect communication
and extroversion is associated with direct communication


Also if introversion is associated with contemplation, wisdom, reservedness
and extroversion is associated with capability, confidence, activity

ridiculous.

[Not A Communist Shill]

How can person be neither extrovert or introvert? Together, they are all inclusive definitions - you can't not be in either. The same with dynamic\static.

Why is dynamic better defined than static? Once you understand one, the other can be defined by the opposite, like black and white. Also is static, and is dynamic - they aren't both dynamic.

[krieger]

No, it's not dynamic and static that are well-defined and not-well-defined. Si is well-defined and Ne is not-well-defined. I can't help you understand this better as it is one of the basic tenets of the theory. The original words used were 'external' and 'internal', but I find those difficult to work with. (precisely because they are not-well-defined, heh)

You are right that socionics of today claims there are no people without extrovert functions, but that is exactly the claim I want to challenge (hypothetically). Also, none of these types would lack completely in any attribute - they just wouldn't have them in their conscious blocks.

Also, a more accessible presentation:

EESTj has an ego block consisting of Accepting Te and Creating Se
IINFp has Accepting Ni and Creating Fi
etc.

But: Ni in an IINFp does not mean exactly the same thing as Ni in an INFp. This because the functions cause different transitions of information.

(The notations are arbitrary.)

[aestrivex]

OMFG YOUR NOTATION IS SO BAD IT SHOULD BE LSEE

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think it's plausible of having boundary types, but I think the huge variability of nature will make this a very rare occurence. Even if they existed, people don't act the same way all the time - it would be difficult to test being equal in two opposing functions - changing one answer would be the difference between a different type - (maybe it's something for the far distant future. Jung always intended his functions to be like four points on a compass, not all this boundary stuff...

What don't you like about the definition? I would have thought was more difficult to define. Anyway, for an easy distinction using similar language:
types go from the many sensations given by their surroundings, and seek to maintain those few which give them the most comfort (typically).
goes from the few objects in their environment and seeks many possibilities about their future direction using properties of the objects in the present.
(many to few) - passive perception of objects (reception of their internal properties)
(few to many) - active perception of objects (manipulation of thier internal properties)

[krieger]

What don't you like about the Extraverted Intution definition? I would have thought Introverted Sensing was more difficult to define. Anyway, for an easy distinction using similar language:

A bit of miscommunication going on here.

What I'm trying to say is that I subscribe to this interpretation of the functions: (kudos to smilex)

Se = perceptive, well-defined, extrovert
Si = perceptive, well-defined, introvert
Ne = perceptive, not well-defined, extrovert
Ni = perceptive, not well-defined, introvert
Te = judging, well-defined, extrovert
Ti = judging, well-defined, introvert
Fe = judging, not well-defined, extrovert
Fi = judging, not well-defined, introvert

I don't have beef with the level of detail at which socionics descibes these functions. The Ne function is simply by definition a function that deals with 'not-well-defined' information.

[Not A Communist Shill]

In this thread:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...3370474#174360

you said well-defined = external, not well-defined = internal, and I said it should be external = concrete, internal = abstract, based on Xoxian socionics.
When you say not well-defined, do you mean the visible manifestations of it to the outside world, our own personal understanding of the function, or 'not well-defined' by definition - e.g. , , and are not well-defined because they are not based on logical principles\observable characteristics etc.?

I see these four functions following consistent internal rules - just because the rules are abstract doesn't make them 'not well-defined' - their dynamics are known by those who use them.

[anndelise]

you said well-defined = external, not well-defined = internal, and I said it should be external = concrete, internal = abstract, based on Xoxian socionics.

how do you get around the conflicts with socionics saying this?
S, T = external
N, F = internal
N, T = abstract
S, F = involved (some might call this concrete as it referrences a physiological base...sorry for the misspelling)

[Not A Communist Shill]

you said well-defined = external, not well-defined = internal, and I said it should be external = concrete, internal = abstract, based on Xoxian socionics.

how do you get around the conflicts with socionics saying this?
S, T = external
N, F = internal
N, T = abstract
S, F = involved (some might call this concrete as it referrences a physiological base...sorry for the misspelling)

\ \ \ are abstract because the rules that govern them aren't easily visible:
Ne = internal statics of objects
Ni = internal dynamics of fields
Fe = internal dynamics of objects
Fi = internal statics of fields

The other four functions are concrete, because the rules are more defined, 'obvious' - they are external, based on visible phenomenon.

The 'statics of objects'\'dyamics of fields'\'dynamics of objects'\'statics of fields' may appear to give the function an extroverted\introverted focus, but this does not equal external\internal, otherwise the terms would be redundant.

[Not A Communist Shill]

This is from another post:

I think XoX descibe this best:
internal = abstract meaning
external = concrete, 'obvious' detail\measurement

Also:
object = well defined entity (with form + boundaries) - something which can be changed with reference to its enviroment.
field = borderless construct - 'it goes beyond the horizon' - the site (the environment or context) at which events happen over a period of time (involving objects).

dynamic = the passive observation of objects (the observation of trends in objects)
static = the active manipulation of objects, with little awareness of the context

In Ixxjs, the 'active manipulation of objects' is actually the setting up of experiments in the mind in order to evaluate the importance\value of external objects - although it happens in the field, hence the 'external\internal statics of fields' - there is little reference to time\contextual factors - these are the constants of the experiment. However, the evaluations are carried out over a period of time.

In Ixxps, external objects happen to them (they are passive), rather than their own conscious manipulation (experimentation) of the object - these are imprinted and recorded in their 'internal\external dynamics of fields'. They see things as trends because they can remember the way objects were arranged at certain points in the past - they see things repeating themselves by seeing a particular arrangement, and thus know when to act (they are active because the time is right, and not because they have arranged the objects themselves).

Exxjs are able to gather the appropriate information needed for a situation very quickly, as the data gathered through or comes straight from their environment at that particular time - the information is largely uncritical, not analysed over time as with or . As they are dynamic, they know what happens when objects are in certain arrangements (their context), and so they also know which information is appropriate to gather from the environment (without necessarily finding out the validity of the information - they estimate when a particular situation is going to arise, and seek to improve on last time).

Exxps are able to see the way objects in the present should be straight away, because they are static - they have already determined the power\potential of objects, and thus seek to implement this.

Objects can be conceived of internally - the objects\fields does thing refer to specific entities, not just introverted\extroverted.

If it was as simple as that, then why have 'external statics of objects for ? This phrase refers to 'external statics' of objects.

It's true that objects = external, fields = internal, but the first part of each information element refers to how these are perceived + judged, i.e. 'internal statics', 'external statics', 'internal dynamics', external dynamics.

[anndelise]

you said well-defined = external, not well-defined = internal, and I said it should be external = concrete, internal = abstract, based on Xoxian socionics.

how do you get around the conflicts with socionics saying this?
S, T = external
N, F = internal
N, T = abstract
S, F = involved (some might call this concrete as it referrences a physiological base...sorry for the misspelling)

\ \ \ are abstract because the rules that govern them aren't easily visible:
Ne = internal statics of objects
Ni = internal dynamics of fields
Fe = internal dynamics of objects
Fi = internal statics of fields

The other four functions are concrete, because the rules are more defined, 'obvious' - they are external, based on visible phenomenon.

The 'statics of objects'\'dyamics of fields'\'dynamics of objects'\'statics of fields' may appear to give the function an extroverted\introverted focus, but this does not equal external\internal, otherwise the terms would be redundant.

so basically, you solve it by saying that socionics is wrong when it says that N and T are abstract?

[Not A Communist Shill]

How is T abstract?

[anndelise]

How is T abstract?

I don't know, I'm not the one who defined N and T as abstract.

[anndelise]

How is T abstract?

I don't know, I'm not the one who defined N and T as abstract.

here's just a couple of links in which I had tried to get people to discuss this:

http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...volved&start=0

http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...nvolved#118535

[Not A Communist Shill]

Those links are interested...but I found one of XoX's post very influential on this matter - about 2 months ago, he translated those information elements the way you did, but with different interpretations. He didn't fully understand what they meant , and offered them for interpretation, and they were a godsend for me in understand them...I don't know how those alternatives were drawn up, and the post has been deleted anyway, but I've had some posts inspired by it (I hope I'm not deluded ).

But his interpretation was external=concrete, internal=abstract, as O explained above.

With the dynamics\statics and fields\objects, it doesn't really dwell to try and determine whether they are internally focussed or whatever, it just confuses things.

That post I recover of yours describing webs etc. was inspirational to me too, but I didn't understand most of it : 'nodes' can equal 'objects' and vice versa regardless of whether they are outside your head or inside it...(at least for a basic understand)...everything is processed by your brain anyway. The fields are like a map inside your mind, or the world in front of you - they are the site or the environment where objects\nodes whatever undergo change.

So, both the internal world and the external world can be thought of as two seperate maps with places on them. You said in one of those posts you had difficulty to explaining abstract functions, that's the answer. Those posts failed to take into account dynamic\static + fields\objects, which I think are key.

I must have explained this about five times now in different forms : here's a recent one:
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...4fc5db4#174903

(Tell me if I'm wrong ).

[anndelise]

My view on and is: from the information elements they are both external, but is 'statics of fields' and is 'dynamics of objects'

is a long term internal process which is considered 'external' because real external objects are evaluated - there is no hidden focus for the inductions formed by the comparing of one object to the object - anyone could access these properties.

is a short-term event which is considered 'external' because data about objects in the external world typically comes from the consensus of opinion on those objects - e.g. 'the earth goes round the sun' is believed by most people.

Both \ both get information about external objects, in their different ways - is (largely uncritical), an internal process which takes some time - but their conclusions are based on reasonings, and are therefore concrete IMO.

all i know is that when i searched and searched the various ways that the russian terms for internal and external were used...the terms and concepts of implict and explicit consistently came into usage. internal being implicit, external being explicit

thus
T would be explicit abstracted
S would be explicit involvement (the involvement of our senses regarding explicit qualities)
F would be implicit involvement (the involvement of our senses regarding implicit qualities)
N would be implicit abstracted

(note, socionics texts warn for carefulness when interpreting Sensory and Feeling because both in english are "sensation"...yet the sensations being referred to are different)



either way, if you are going to use "abstract vs concrete" the way that you are, then you're redefining the functions which socionics has defined as "abstract"

[Not A Communist Shill]

all i know is that when i searched and searched the various ways that the russian terms for internal and external were used...the terms and concepts of implict and explicit consistently came into usage. internal being implicit, external being explicit

thus
T would be explicit abstracted
S would be explicit involvement (the involvement of our senses regarding explicit qualities)
F would be implicit involvement (the involvement of our senses regarding implicit qualities)
N would be implicit abstracted

(note, socionics texts warn for carefulness when interpreting Sensory and Feeling because both in english are "sensation"...yet the sensations being referred to are different)

either way, if you are going to use "abstract vs concrete" the way that you are, then you're redefining the functions which socionics has defined as "abstract"

Hmm, I don't know what to say . Can you be sure things weren't translated funny - like with external dynamics of objects for , the 'dynamics' could mean an abstract understanding of objects, but not time? (Statics have an understanding of the value of objects in the here-and-now, which is in a sense, concrete, compared to long-term understandings of object value.)

[Not A Communist Shill]

T would be explicit abstracted
S would be explicit involvement (the involvement of our senses regarding explicit qualities)
F would be implicit involvement (the involvement of our senses regarding implicit qualities)
N would be implicit abstracted

Hmm...with the Xox revolution I experienced, F being implicit involvement would mean that the rules were hidden to a majority of people (not largely understood as with logic) due to it being implicit - e.g. have an internal dynamic of objects because they appeal to the basic\raw desires of people, but being dynamic, it had to happen at the right moment with particular people, not with any person in the here-and-now. The 'internal statics of fields' I interpreted as some mechanism for taking on the values of your close-knit family group, and reinforcing them through practice. A type would instead appeal to a large minority of people by invigorating some basic\primal human desires...this is what I saw as implicit - it seemed to follow it was abstract - the rules are hidden to many.

S would be explicit involvement because it involves 'real' external objects that everone can sense - even with a type, people know the cause of their sensation, if not the value - it is explicit and concrete. types, being dynamic, would be passive to objects in the here-and-now, while receiving sensations from them. types, being static, would actively control objects in the here-and-now.

Meh. I wrote a bit about \ here:
http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...=172123#172123

[anndelise]

I'm not quite sure what the problem is here

I have not argued against the static/dynamic nor the object/field

My focus has been on the conflicts which occur between the functions socionics has defined as being abstract, and the functions you and XoX are defining as being abstract. Key word being "abstract".

irregardless of your reasons for redefining which functions are "abstract", there IS a conflict between your redefinitions and socionics' definitions
socionics says N and T are abstract
you and XoX say N and F are abstract

now, if you were to tell me that you are tossing out the socionics labels of which functions are "abstract" and inserting your own labels of which functions are "abstract", then I understand why you are not running into a problem with your reasoning.

on the other hand, if you were initially unaware that socionics had already labled certain functions as "abstract" functions, now you are no longer unaware and can reason out for yourself whether to
a) ditch socionics' "abstract" functions and replace them with your own...or
b) adjust your understandings to fit closer with socionics' definition


or, it could be that there is a difference in the concepts meant when using the terms "abstract"
so the alternative to a) and b) could be
c) replace "abstract" in each of the groups below with a word that more clearly defines the concepts meant in each grouping
* abstract vs concrete
* abstract vs "the involvement"

[Not A Communist Shill]

I know you haven't argue against anything..I think I may have misunderstood something somewhere. I can't explain why certain functions are abstract\concrete etc. if that's true...It seem obvious what things meant, if only each information element was broken down into pieces. I've probably lost some information on the way. I know what 'abstract' means, but in this context, I think I get pretty lost and mixed up . It just seems common sense to considered N and F abstract, but alternatively, introverted functions could be, or the fields or dynamic dichotomies. I guess I just followed one of many erroneous roads...

[anndelise]

"the involvement" refers to sensations. but we have two basic different types of sensations. we have the sensory organs which give us the sensations of sight, sound, taste, smell, touch. we have...something else... which gives us sensations of anger, joy, calmness, agitatedness, etc.

we experience those feelings. we are involved in them...and/or those feelings are involved in us, and affect other things as well (ie the direction of our thoughts and/or immediate reactions).

the point at which we label any of those sensations...the point in which we smell something and label it as cinnamon....the point in which we label an emotion as "fear"...etc...at that point of labeling...we have abstracted the sensation. we are no longer involved IN/WITH the sensation...we have pulled back just enough to abstract it so that we can give it a label. (btw, labeling is just one example of what we do when we abstract something...so don't get all hung up on "abstracting is not labelling")

some people are very comfortable with all those sensations...both kinds (SF), some people are very uncomfortable with sensations and pull away from them..thus attempting to abstract almost everything (NT), and yet others are quite comfortable dealing with certain types of sensations as well as certain types of abstractions (ST and NF)

some people attend more to the sensations of sight, sound, touch, smell, etc. whatever it is that they are sensing is explicit (usually). but emotions are not explicit. emotions are implicit.

if I say that I hear a bell, you can listen and hear that bell as well. it is a sensation we can share.

if i say that i feel anger, there is no sensory organ which you can focus on in order to feel the same kind of anger as i feel. and if by chance you happen to feel anger at the same time I feel anger, that does not mean that it is coming from the same source...for me, perhaps it was the way that guy hit the bell that made me angry...and for you, perhaps it's that i felt angry about something so trivial that has you feeling angry at me.

now, i know that chances are you are going to say something like "see, the S sensation is concrete, while the F sensation is abstract". but all that shows me is that somehow, the term "abstract" is being used differently in the groupings of
* abstract vs concrete
* abstract vs the involvement

[anndelise]

if I say that I hear a bell, you can listen and hear that bell as well. it is a sensation we can share.

if i say that i feel anger, there is no sensory organ which you can focus on in order to feel the same kind of anger as i feel. and if by chance you happen to feel anger at the same time I feel anger, that does not mean that it is coming from the same source...for me, perhaps it was the way that guy hit the bell that made me angry...and for you, perhaps it's that i felt angry about something so trivial that has you feeling angry at me.

there is something in this second paragraph that can be broken down to show a difference, but i don't know what nor how

the first shows explicit sensations
the second shows implicit sensations
the feelings are there (the involvement) regardless of whether or not we are aware of the "cause" or direction of the feelings
the point in which we express cause, we are abstracting the sensations
self expression is involvement
verbal communication is an abstraction

something about those last two can be used to clear this up...
but i don't know how

[Smilingeyes]

In this thread:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...3370474#174360

you said well-defined = external, not well-defined = internal, and I said it should be external = concrete, internal = abstract, based on Xoxian socionics.
When you say not well-defined, do you mean the visible manifestations of it to the outside world, our own personal understanding of the function, or 'not well-defined' by definition - e.g. , , and are not well-defined because they are not based on logical principles\observable characteristics etc.?

I see these four functions following consistent internal rules - just because the rules are abstract doesn't make them 'not well-defined' - their dynamics are known by those who use them.

The problem with using 'abstract' as a socionic term is that 'abstract' is one of those terms that has already been linked to -functions in opposition to +functions, a notation which in itself is misleading but the point being that naming "internal" "abstract" while true in the sense of meaning of the word is just asking for trouble because of overuse and misunderstanding of the word "abstract". "Not well-defined" is just another term for exactly the same idea as Augusta's "internal" but avoids all the stupid mixups with extroversion-introversion and +/- functions. You can't bring meanings of normal etymology into a discussion of socionics terminology and so most of your post is irrelevant.

@Niffweed

ridiculous

Yes, you are.

@anndelise
The notation that SF is "involved" is good, but the opposite of that should be "detached" (or something to that effect) not "abstract". The overuse of the word "abstract" is just asking for trouble.

@labcoat
I can't see your main thesis for this thread working.

----------

Generally most of the discussion in this thread seems to be about conflicting uses of the word abstract.

The word abstract is generally in three different uses in socionics:

1. the quality of amount of detail/specificity in information (ST vs. NF)
2. the quality of personal contact with an issue (SF vs. NT)
3. the quality of cool/distant/ascending/searching aka -functions vs. warm/close/descending/asserting aka +functions

It is not incorrect in any of these cases but it is misleading in all of them and would preferrably be replaced with another term in all of these instances.

Carry on.

[anndelise]

Thank you Smilingeyes. I thought something like that was going on, but I couldn't ..define...it :wink:



So basically, thus far we have:

Detached = N, T
Involved = S, F

well-defined (explicit) = S, T
not well-defined (implicit) = N, F

well-defined qualities and detached = T
not well-defined qualities and detached = N
well-defined qualities and involved = S
not well-defined qualities and involved = F

personally, i think explicit/implicit are better terms, however, i'm willing to play around with the well-defined/not well-defined phrases, at least until someone offers something more....elegant?...


meanwhile, keeping these in mind, i'll run through this thread again to see if there's anything further i'd like cleared up.

Subterranean...what do you think?

[anndelise]

labcoat, regarding your original question for this thread....

I admit to having difficulties conceiving of a person who is XeXe or XiXi. attempting to place myself into such a concept position is quite...mentally painful. This pain I've come to trust as meaning...whatever I'm attempting to imagine is virtually impossible.

However, one of the thoughts I've played with follows:

if given:
interdependencies, well-defined, detached
interdependencies, well-defined, involved
interdependencies, not well-defined, detached
interdependencies, not well-defined, involved
objects, well-defined, detached
objects, well-defined, involved
objects, not well-defined, detached
objects, not well-defined, involved

AND objects and interdependencies needing to be combined (ie XeXi; XiXe)

then why can there not be such combos as:
objects, not well-defined, detached WITH interdependencies, well-defined, involved ?
interdependencies, not well-defined, involved WITH objects, well-defined, detached ?
etc

so far, the only thing that implies there can't be is that for some reason, half of ...say Xe... are defined as "perceiving" functions, and the other half are "judging" functions (same applies to Xi)

why is "interdependencies, well-defined, detached" a judging function?
can it be a perceiving function?



however, it seems you prefer to use extroversion/introversion for Xe/Xi, even then, the above applies, just replace objects/interdependencies as extroversion/introversion


however...hehe...you also use the definitions of perceiving/judging.
Can you explain to me why you use those (other than "because it's always been done")?
Admittedly, the set you quoted of smile's doesn't run into the issues i'm running into above.

[FDG]

I think this idea has already been presented, but I do not remember where nor am I willing to dig the topic which has plausibly been erased during the assault. In any case, I remember what the problem was with that attempt: let us take as an example LSEE that you were describing as having Te accepting and Se creating. Let us now recuperate the definitions of Te accepting and Se creating from the dichotomical descriptions of types that similingeyes posted a while ago. (Let's pretend I made the comparison, which I will made if requested to, and I won't if not); now, it is to me clear that there is an incompatiblity between the representations of reality of accepting Te (with according reaction) with the representations of reality (with according reaction) of Se.

Let us again take the brief defintions. Let us suppose that we have a type which is accepting Ne, producing Te.

Now: if Te is explicit and well-defined and judging, and Ne is explicit and not well-defined and perceiving - wouldn't two explict functions associate themselves with the same bandwidth (namely, reality), thus making impossible for the individual to ascertain which one of the two versions he/she should rely on in order to act?

[Smilingeyes]

Some excellent points by anndelise and fdg.

If I may rephrase the issue that anndelise brought up...

What is the relation between
interdependencies, well-defined, detached and
interdependencies, well-defined, involved ?

What is the relation between
interdependencies, well-defined, detached and
interdependencies, not well-defined, detached?

What is the relation between
interdependencies, well-defined, detached and
interdependencies, not well-defined, involved?

What is the relation between
interdependencies, well-defined, detached and
objects, well-defined, detached?

What is the relation between
interdependencies, well-defined, detached and?

What is the relation between
interdependencies, well-defined, detached and?

What is the relation between
interdependencies, well-defined, detached and
objects, well-defined, involved?

What is the relation between
interdependencies, well-defined, detached and
objects, not well-defined, detached?

What is the relation between
interdependencies, well-defined, detached and
objects, not well-defined, involved ?

These questions are of such an uberly delicious nature I must make them a part of my thread somewhere else. So this part of this post is just a mental note for myself, apologies for the intrusion on public space.

....

On the other hand, as to the question, why things that are well-defined & detached are judging whereas not-well-defined and detached are perceiving, it's because that is a definition for a quality of the system. The actual meaning of that quality is not absolutely certain and theoretically irrelevant. For this reason the question, what is perceiving well-defined & detached is insensible, because by definition there is no such thing. It's not that such a thing hasn't been found. It's that perceiving as a name automatically excludes any reference to anything that is well-defined & detached.
The question itself has a logical fault. It's like asking what if blue was yellow? Or even what if there's a yellow blue that we haven't found?

Or put in yet another way. Perceiving is just a name for all the qualities that are exhibited by things that are either well-defined and involved or not-well-defined and detached but never exhibited by things that are well-defined and detached or not-well-defined and involved. What is limited is our ability to understand the meaning of each of these characteristics of the system. If we want to discuss a quality that exists or doesn't exist in all of these cathegories we are formulating a new independent dichotomy and we must start talking about well-defined involved foo vs. well-defined involved bar and the meanings of these combinations. But perceiving is a dependent, not an independent dichotomy and it should not be discussed in such a way.

Happy with that?

[krieger]

Looks like most of you have difficulty imagining this working in reality. I'm going Niels Bohr on this one and say that your imaginations have been conditioned by a faulty system from the start. Not like I actually believe myself when I say this, but hey, it's all for the hypothesis' sake.

Anyway, I'm having fun, so lets take this a step further.

Let's sketch a slightly clearer picture of what our as-of-yet untypable friends look like.

IINTj: democracy, result
IISTj: aristocracy, process
IISFj: democracy, result
IINFj: aristocracy, process

EESFj: democracy, result
EENFj: aristocracy, process
EENTj: democracy, result
EESTj: aristocracy, process

IISFp: democracy, process
IINFp: aristocracy, result
IINTp: democracy, process
IISTp: aristocracy, result

EENTp: democracy, process
EESTp: aristocracy, result
EESFp: democracy, process
EENFp: aristocracy, result

Unfortunately, the other Reinin dichotomies cannot be made to apply. A new set of technical terms will have to be invented.

(the above isn't all that informative, although it should make clear that the types have some traits in common with the types you get when you remove first letter from their acronym - democracy/aristocracy and process/result are the same for those types)

An interesting observation: while an INTj and an IINTj may seem to opperate on the same main accepting function (Ti), to constatate this is very misleading. The INTj's Ti precipitates a movement from Ne-Si to Se-Ni, while the IINTj's Ti makes events move from Se-Ni to Ne-Si. That's precisely opposite, which should have consequences on the way INTj's and IINTj's interact. For the same reason, an ESFj may well not dualize an IINTj with his/her Fe function. These relations would probably make for some very strange, tantalizing interactions.

What would the relation between an E.Tj and an II.Tj be like? They would produce similar effects through their actions, but would do so using a different 'tool'... INTj and IISTj? backward identity and activity relation? This raises some interesting questions about the inner workings of the intertype relations.

[Republicus]

A traditional axiom in type systems is not to place an Extroverted Rational function with an Extroverted Irrational and so forth. Help me understand why this is long the case, is it because functions aren't the determinant of these orders, and instead these other properties, dynamics, static etc... are. Why?

[krieger]

Ok, first let me tell you that if you are going to take this thread seriously you do so at your own risk and certainly not at my recommendation.

In this thread I am simply bending the rules a bit, finding out that they don't break, and consequently wondering wether there were any rules in the first place.

Besides,

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought.

Jung doesn't mention that the auxiliary function necessarily has to be inverted in the extrovert/introvert dimension. Something to keep in mind.

I'm not really in the stage of being able to answer any 'why' questions about this topic yet. I'm just wondering 'what if?'.

[Republicus]

“Jung doesn't mention that the auxiliary function necessarily has to be inverted in the extrovert/introvert dimension. Something to keep in mind.”

I believe he does. His psychic model relies on opposing pairs. For someone whose most differentiated function is Ti, Fe is the least. And there are two in between, Se and Ne. They have to be extroverted because the primary is introverted. They have to be irrational because the primary is rational. Either Se or Ne will be the next best differentiated function. This model forces all 8 functions to assume certain roles, but to greatly varying degrees. Which personality systems don't really account for.

Never the less, there is a lot that he leaves unexplained. I think Socionics and MBTI are taking a lot of things for granted that aren't necessarily true. One of which is that the functions aren't functions of the same entity, and are instead all different processes. I'm not sure that Jung says they are or aren't, he is simply talking about aspects of cognition, not necessarily the process. I think these assumptions can be traced back to a meaning of the word function, but he often redefines words in his own subjective context.

He is also talking about a theoretical natural state, and doesn't go over 'personalities' for other function usage combination, some of which may be possible.

[krieger]

why can there not be such combos as:
objects, not well-defined, detached WITH interdependencies, well-defined, involved ?
interdependencies, not well-defined, involved WITH objects, well-defined, detached ?
etc

The problem there is that the functions are dual seeking to eachother. Dual seeking functions needing to be on opposite sides of the consicous/unconscious division was another unvoiced axiom. I'll add it to the list.

[krieger]

Now: if Te is explicit and well-defined and judging, and Ne is explicit and not well-defined and perceiving - wouldn't two explict functions associate themselves with the same bandwidth (namely, reality), thus making impossible for the individual to ascertain which one of the two versions he/she should rely on in order to act?

They'd share the bandwidth of 'extroversion', but they would be on a different bandwidth static/dynamic wise, to use your own terms. Similarly, an INTj's Ti and Ne share the bandwidth of 'static', but differ in extrovert/introvert.

[FDG]

Now: if Te is explicit and well-defined and judging, and Ne is explicit and not well-defined and perceiving - wouldn't two explict functions associate themselves with the same bandwidth (namely, reality), thus making impossible for the individual to ascertain which one of the two versions he/she should rely on in order to act?

They'd share the bandwidth of 'extroversion', but they would be on a different bandwidth static/dynamic wise, to use your own terms. Similarly, an INTj's Ti and Ne share the bandwidth of 'static', but differ in extrovert/introvert.

Well the two bandwidths clearly are not of the same nature though, because external does not exclude internal but static does exclude dynamic, say if you have a tool you can have external and internal components (although Xi functions actually deal with relationships, but let's keep it on those terms because they are good for analogizing) but if you perform a graphic analysis either you have comparative statics or dynamic analysis, you can't combine them

[FDG]

I think a nice idea would be one of types that have been able to substitute one of their functions with their dual seeking like, a SiTi ENTp or FiNi ENTj or NeTe ENFp

but they would be valid more as modes of operation than types from which to build a system I think?

[tcaudilllg]

I think a nice idea would be one of types that have been able to substitute one of their functions with their dual seeking like, a SiTi ENTp or FiNi ENTj or NeTe ENFp

but they would be valid more as modes of operation than types from which to build a system I think?

I'm going to have to agree with FDG here, labcoat. What you are suggesting is effectively identical to my first approach. Modes of operation, definitely yes. I can see the world from a viewpoint, forcasting the potential of objects based on their relational dynamics with each other. In fact, I would love to see more research done on this point. Lots of research, in fact, because the consequences of its existence to philosophy, in particular, are tremendous.

But I don't think they can be imaged as stand-alone dynamics. There must be a stable "control" type to oversee this viewpoint.



Annedelise:

objects, not well-defined, detached WITH interdependencies, well-defined, involved ?
interdependencies, not well-defined, involved WITH objects, well-defined, detached ?

What you are suggesting is exactly what the current form of my crosstype theory explores; that is, seeing a function as intrinsically dependent on, or internal to, another function. For example, observing the traits of time, followed by observing the influence of the trait on the practical flow of time.