Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: A Primer On My Research Into Socionics and Personality

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A Primer On My Research Into Socionics and Personality

    I intend to make of this thread a detailed description of the theory which up to now has been called "psychorelativity". I intend to finish some of the description now and some of it later. I will digress from ambiguity at all points: what you will see is the state of the theory's structure as it stands now. It is very unlikely there will be any changes or revisions to what I present here, although like all theories it will be an incomplete model and subject to additions.

    My research focuses on two areas: the structure of the psyche and the manifestation of the functions in model A. I will be discussing the structure of the psyche first, because the work of the functions comes into it, and the functions are, ultimately, variations of structure in the psyche.

    We perceive the world through recognizing objects. Objects are recognized on the basis of two criterion: what attributes they possess, and what traits they have. When events occur, objects change. We call the attributes that remain to the object the statics of the object, and the attributes that are changed its dynamics. Objects also posses energy, of which there are two kinds potential and kinetic. We say that the potential within an object that remains unchanged in the course of an event is its static potential. The new potentials created by the change are its dynamic potentials. Kinetic energy behaves similarly: the behaviors (traits) of an object that remain static after change are its static kinetics. We call its new behaviors and traits, in contrast, its dynamic kinetics.



    Because these aspects variously conflict and contrast with each other, we keep them seperate in our perception and only consider them compatible to our consciousness if we are confident they are equally relevant to an understanding of the object. To focus on one mode of perception over another aligns us with a definite point of view that others who are similarly aligned at that time will be capable of understanding. We are allowed to see some aspects clearly and others not at all. Our view can be said to be restrained and subjective, counter to the objective reality that we are actually experiencing. When after seeing a situation from all four sides we find common ground between them, we consider the commonalities of view to be objective.

    We thus say that our psyche is comprised of four kinds of information, which when reconciled create a fifth kind. Because the unreconciled information is incompatible with its contrary, we must seperate our psyche into subdomains specific to the information considered. Together these domains comprise our objective psyche.





    Because the information aspects are necessarily seperated they must be processed
    individually. One can only process one aspect of information at a time. Because
    of this one's thought is divided into four seperate, alternating processes that
    can be continued and discontinued at will. When one selects a stream to process,
    one is capable of exchanging information with others who have selected the same
    stream. One thus shares a common line of thought or context with individuals
    who are focusing on similar information aspects. Because there are four aspects
    to perceive, as we have seen, we say there are four lines of common context that
    can be shared.

    These four lines remain in the memory of oneself and others at all times. When
    one selects a line for processing, one is capable of using all other psychological
    functions in the context of the selected line. These functions can be used to
    communicate information that is exclusive to the aspect domain of the line. Over
    the history of mankind these lines have developed and evolved as new outlooks and
    information has become apparent to us. Effectively, the lines have developed into
    unique worlds all their own. Each has a preferred method of adaptational strategy
    that emphasizes its respective information aspect over all others. Thus when one
    chooses an aspect to focus on, one is engaged in its adaptational strategy.

    By selecting an aspect to focus on, one chooses to ignore the aspect contrary
    to the selected. To perceive the influence of an aspect on its contrary is to
    witness the mutually annihilitory potentials of the considered views. Static
    potential, having as its domain of consideration that which remains constant of
    perception, naturally clashes with the impetus to consider different points of
    view, the domain of dynamic potentials. One cannot entertain the analysis of many
    points of view in great depth because consideration implies time and the demands
    of environmental adaptation are immediate. Similarly, dynamic kinetics, which
    emphasize focus on how traits and behaviors have changed, is of little assistance
    to the understanding of static kinetics, which emphasize what has not changed.
    Because each aspect domain emphasizes a different strategy, the strategies
    embraced by contrary domains may interfere with each other in the pursuit of
    practical matters. Particularly in situations of limited time and resource,
    anxiety over questions of resource availability may lead to clashes between
    contrary domains. To an extent people always face limitations of time and resource,
    therefore the potential for conflict between domains is high. In the interest of
    survival in an objective world, it is necessary for people to find common ground
    between contrary domains. Rather than attempt to see the world from the other
    side's view, a person operating under a given domain strategy will instead attempt
    to understand the strategy of the domains not contrary to their own. Effective
    communication between themselves and others who are focusing on an aspect
    non-contrary to their own may allow them glimpses into the contrary domain's
    strategy. In return for this information, the inquirer may offer their informant
    insight into the strategy of the domain contrary to the informant's.

    Having discussed the fundamentals of interaction between the four domains, let us
    discuss the domains themselves.

    The Static-Potential Domain:
    This domain emphasizes persistent, longstanding ideas and attentiveness to stable
    precepts and perceptions. There is no greater constant of perception than that of
    one's own body, and for this reason the static-potentialist pays great attention
    to the influence of the body on one's personal experience. This emphasis lends
    itself to an entire worldview of somatocentrism: the static potentialist desires
    an environment that will allow them to respond to their body's specific needs.
    They desire protection for their body and stability of resource access. They are
    not troubled by what they must do to acquire these resources, only that they have
    ready access to them should they be needed. For this reason they work toward the
    stability of nations: social chaos gets in the way of resource acquisition. They
    distrust the judgement of individuals because they see individual choice as
    motivated by somatic causes. They have condensed between themselves the political
    ideologies of conservatism in service to these concerns.

    The static potentialist avoids the witness of multiple interpretations of a
    situation. Instead they hold true to one single interpretation which they seek to
    explore in great depth. On the surface, they may seem shallow and simply defined.
    However, in the view of the static potentialist simple definitions between many
    elements can imply great varieties of structural complexity. Therefore there is
    value in self-definition, even if it must be simple and incomplicated. Furthermore,
    static potentialists perceive within the context of a character many facets: the
    situations that life presents before a static traditionalist invite the
    exploration of their character's many intricacies. The static potentialist seeks
    new situations by which they may learn more about themselves while holding true
    to their single worldview, thus allowing them a shared strategy for apprehending
    their own existence. However, the static potentialist is apt to project their own
    strategy onto their perception of non-static potentialist strategies, and it is
    here that they meet conflict with the other lines. Their relations with dynamic
    potentialism are particularly poor: they fail to apprehend that the dynamic
    potentialist is not, like them, exploring a single point of view in great depth,
    but is instead attempting to choose between viewpoints in search of the most
    positive available perspective. The static potentialist is by their nature
    ignorant of this search, because they are ill-suited to undertake it. Instead
    they assume the dynamic potentialist has consciously adopted the view contrary to
    their own, and chosen to explore it in comparable depth. The contrary viewpoint
    is therefore trasmuted into an opposing viewpoint. If however they deduce that
    the opinion chosen by their contrary is not in opposition, then they will
    immediately discern the dynamic potentialist's shallow understanding of the view
    they have chosen. Static potentialists may perceive this shallow understanding as
    proof of dynamic potentialism's ignorance and incompentance of the means to
    survive.

    Static potentialist relations with static kinetists and dynamic kinetists are
    cooler: either domain perceives advantages to the static potentialist view.
    Kineticism, while open to dynamic potentialism's positive perspectivism (in as much
    as dynamic potentialism enlightens them of it), sees equally the virtues of static
    potentialist interpretive restraint. Because kineticism percieves a point of view
    as implying action, the perception by a kinetist of a situation which is well
    understood from an objective standpoint may reinforce their consideration of the
    conservative viewpoint in all of its depth and well-founded premises. In contrast,
    if the static kinetist observes current understanding to be insufficient to the
    situation, they may opt for the liberal range of alternate interpretations. The
    choice of intepretations is vital to the kinetist viewpoint, because it will be
    the interpretation of the situation that creates the impetus for action.


    The Static-Kinetic Domain:
    Static Kineticism emphasizes persistences of activity. These included laws
    of action and of motion, enduring forces (such as gravity), the observance of
    institutional norms, and the continuity of processes; in a word, order. Over
    the centuries, static kineticism has developed a vast library of solutions to
    a variety of problems; indeed, of all problems man has managed to solve. If in
    the context of objective memory static potentialism is the guardian of enduring
    interpretations, then static kineticism is the guardian of enduring process and
    response. For each situation, thinks the static kinetists, there exists an
    appropriate response. Static kinetists only invoke those solutions they
    understand to be proven; they avoid solutions that are poorly formed or
    half-managed. One such solution is the practice of filling institutional roles
    with individuals whose traits are sufficiently suited to the role's duties. This
    practice has emerged from the static kinetist's natural aptitude for perceiving
    the persistences of behavior that are passed on from one generation to another.
    Before genetics, hereditary traits were described as factors of lineage. Thus
    static kineticism has worked hard to preserve the most effective hereditary
    traits while attempting to surpress the appearance of ineffective traits. This
    emphasis is reflected in the dynastic practices of inbreeding and of arranged
    marriage: by marrying positive traits to each other, a better set of traits can
    be created. However static kineticism does not disparage individuals for being
    unable to fulfill a given role; rather, they will attempt to match their person
    to the role most suited to their unique talents. Static kinetists view the
    assumption of a role by someone who is unsuited to it as an expression of vanity;
    they will criticize them for their inefficiency. Similarly, they perceive the
    capacity of society to produce as relative to the pool of available genetic
    traits. The more diverse the traits, the more varieties of social function may be
    entertained. Trait interoperability is equally important: traits that are
    understood are more desirable to static kinetists than are poorly understood
    traits, because only through understanding can one ascribe to a set of traits
    a role that is conducive to social functioning.

    The import static kineticism places on social efficiency brings it into conflict
    with dynamic kineticism, which argues that one must make one's own way in the world
    under the conditions one is given. Such a view emphasizes the fight for survival
    over any considerations of how best to conduct a process. If relations between
    the potentialist domains can be described as a cold war of much bluster
    but little action, then kinetist relations are certainly hotter. Faced with an
    ever evolving, ever changing enemy, static kinetists has found necessity to
    fragment themselves into a seemingly irreconciliable mess of splinters whose
    traces can be discerned in the institutional norms of every nation. They
    constantly strive to defend these institutions from what they see as the tyranny
    of unpredicatability: chaos that knows no method save its own endurance. Like
    static potentialism they perceive the methods of their contrary as either
    unchanging and destined by polar opposition, or else poorly conceived and
    undeveloped. Static kineticism observes that action is influenced by
    persistences of influence; they regard ignorance or disregard for these influences
    with disdain.


    The Dynamic Kinetic Domain:
    Dynamic kineticism is change. When dynamic kinetists witness an event, they
    observe what the event has done to change the behavior of the objects involved.
    They are aware of how change takes place, and can set themselves toward the
    fulfillment of meaningful changes in the conduction of process. They perceive
    these changes as the means by which to make a more suitable existence for
    themselves and others. The dynamic kinetist does not bow before their environs:
    they reach out and attempt to manipulate the flow of the energies around them.
    By performing the right manipulations, they believe, anything is possible.
    Dynamic kineticism has little patience for reluctance to change in the face of
    difficult circumstances; they perceive such as a sign of timidity or obtusivity.
    The dynamic kinetist believes meaningful change to be in the capacity of anyone,
    if only they will choose to undertake it. They believe in choosing the action
    which offers the most positive potential outcome, rejecting any pretenses of
    loyalty to any dogma. Similarly, they believe that action, not heredity, defines
    character and person. One must choose the most appropriate course of action and
    accept its consequences, says the dynamic kinetist. This is not to say that
    a dynamic kinetist dimly resigns themselves to the fate of their own making,
    however; indeed, the dynamic kinetist will argue that fate is an illusion with
    no material substance. The flow of time is a matter completely of choices and
    their consequences. If one truly desires to make amends for erroneous judgements,
    then there is ample opportunity for such that is limited only by one's energy and
    personal will. However, the dynamic kinetist believes it of necessity not to
    compound an already untenable situation with further error. Instead, the dynamic
    kinetist chooses to carefully research how change happens and futher, how to create
    the changes most needed. This information they glean from the constantly evolving
    world about them. When a behavior is observed by the objective psyche as
    unrecognizable or divergent from the norm, dynamic kineticism will be capable of a
    sensible explanation. The static kinetist may show a level of skepticism for this
    explanation, however, and with good reason: they have only scarcely accepted
    dynamic kineticism's last explanation, which in turn created the grounds for yet
    a new problem, and a new source of perceived instability. For if a problem is not
    recognized, does it exist? The static kinetist may say no, and it is here that
    the two sides of kineticism come to blows. The dynamic kinetist considers the
    ignorance of a problem sheer folly: problems, the dynamic kinetist believes, must
    be recognized for what they are and adapted to as quickly as possible. Because
    the dynamic kinetist believes in the adaptation to an environmental situation as
    opposed to the mastery of it, they are adept at bringing together different
    interests in the pursuit of common responses to environmental conditions. One
    historical approach to the problem of macro adaptation strategies is the concept
    of nation. Dynamic kineticism views the justification for a nation's contingency
    as its suitability for environmental adaptation and response. To the degree that
    a nation does not meet environmental demands, says the dynamic kinetist, the
    relationship between the peoples who constitute the nation must be changed -- even
    at the nation's expense. In service to the dissolution of circumstantially
    unjustified political states, dynamic kineticism has implemented the strategy of
    nationalism. History shows that static kineticism, which by its nature attempts
    to understand all of the intricacies and subtleties of the adaptation strategies
    it has accepted, responds to the institutional threats nationalism poses with
    all of the force it can muster, ruthlessly prosecuting nationalist insurgents
    to the point of injustice. In modern times the static kinetic elements within
    industrialized nations have composited the ultimate institutional response to
    neonationalism: the military-industrial complex. The union of military strategy
    with high technology has created a sustained system of relationship between the
    soldier and the officer capable of wielding unprecedented power against even the
    smallest nationalistic organizations. For a time these systems proved capable
    of suppressing even the slightest glimmers of resistance to the established state.
    However the mentality of the dynamic kinetist has proved capable of successful
    adaptation, as is its specialty, and through its resourcefulness has developed the
    strategy of assymetric warfare, whose versatility static kineticism has yet to
    match. For all of its amassed strength and vitrol, its finely-honed skills and
    peerless processes, static kineticism finds itself unable to drive its stake into
    the heart of the dynamic kinetic vampire; for dynamic kineticism views the world
    not as the substance of what is done, but as the consequence of what now
    transpires. So long as dynamic kineticism can arrange the unisons of influence
    required for the sustainance of its existence, it will continue to revive its
    depleted numbers and resurrect its wills in its ever bloody battle against
    environmentally unjustified institutionalism. In the face of this immortal
    resistance, it is of little wonder that static kinetists have sought increasing
    levels of control over the media; for what better way to portray ideals of heroism
    and romance in their own image, a tradition of resistance to those volatile forces
    that do not accept defeat, but instead return to haunt their vanquishers again and
    again.


    The Dynamic Potential Domain:
    Dynamic potentialism is witness to new interpretations of event and situation.
    Says the dynamic potentialist, "When change is evident, we must perceive the world
    accordingly". Dynamic potentialism is open to many different viewpoints in its
    eternal quest to view the world in as positive a light as possible in the face
    of overpowering and sometimes negative circumstances. Negative perceptions are
    unilaterally discarded; the dynamic potentialist will not hesistate to use the
    word "evil" as regards negativity of perspective. They hold similar contempt for
    perceptions they believe outdated or false. Dynamic potentialism believes
    perceptions imply power: depending on how a situation is perceived, one may or
    may not influence their condition. Dynamic potentialists believe each point of
    view has merits suited to specific situations: the more points of view available,
    the more likely a positive, progressive perspective may be discovered. For this
    reason dynamic potentialism is very cohesive, moreso than any other domain.
    Non-negative points of view are held by people, and for this reason the people
    who hold these views must be defended if at all possible. Dynamic potentialists
    naturally hold more sympathy for each other than for adherents to other domains;
    therefore they refuse to allow themselves to be divided on the basis of objective
    considerations. Objective division, history has taught them, implies unmitigated
    capacity for self-destruction. Beyond this extreme self-coherency, little can be
    said of dynamic potentialism as regards historical constancy. Every new
    interpretation of anything has necessarily been posed by the dynamic potentialist.
    However, dynamic potentialists are keen to the consequences of event and when an
    interpretation is no longer tenable to their knowledge they will assume it
    obsolete and pay it little further attention, if any. This invites the criticism
    of static potentialism, which maintains that dynamic potentialism never fully
    understood the discarded idea in the first place. Further, the other domains are
    often alarmed at dynamic potentialism's willingness to discard ideas they had
    only scarcely adopted. This unease over dynamic potentialism's constantly
    evolving state often drives the kinetic domains to seek compensation in static
    potentialism's constancy. It is through its drive to woo kineticism -- and
    the inevitable frustration it faces -- that dynamic potentialism finds its own
    limited constancy, and for this purpose it has condensed between itself the
    political forces of progressive liberalism. By pressing for the adoption of their
    interpretations, dynamic potentialists seek to influence the choices of static
    kinetists and dynamic kinetists toward greater objective positivity. History
    demonstrates that when a new interpretation of reality succeeds as an
    accepted basis for social action, conservative forces concede their resistance
    to it as a matter of practicality. This event itself reframes the objective
    situation and spurs liberalism forward into its next stage of perceptive evolution.

    This concludes our discussion of the four aspects of the psyche. We next consider
    the substance of psychic content itself and the influence of the four aspects on its
    manifestation.

    NOTE: I'm thinking of dropping the political connotations... what do you think?
    EDIT 5/1: left the political connotations in; began the static potentialist/conservative description. I'm mostly confident in this.... Freud was a conservative: he believed the psyche was controlled by individualized psychic traumas, which reflected struggles between social expectations and somatic drives. This seems mostly counter to Jung's view, which could be thought of as dynamic potentialist/liberal. It seems to be a matter of spiritual emphasis in the liberal contrasted with somatic (body) emphasis in the conservative, and a desire within either to find compensation for their respectively lopsided focus.
    Edit 5/7: continued the discussion of static potentialism/ideosyncratic conservatism.... ...Somewhat befuddled as to how paleoconservatives view liberals and conservatives... I need more hard facts, particular testimony from paleoconservatives. I'm pretty square about reform's view of either, thanks to many hours of discussion between my mother and other dynamic kinetists close to me. (thanks UDP)
    EDIT 5/9: mostly finished with the psyche structure discussion. (I do need to complete the static kinetic and dynamic kinetic sections still yet...) Next I will discuss what exactly these divergent strategies have to do with model A. Here's a hint: information must be "accepted" from somewhere, don't you think? And where exactly does the information we "produce" go? These questions will be the topic of our next discussion, which I believe I will set within a thread seperate from this one, as this one is large enough already, and a topic of considerable depth in its own right.

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are your concepts of "static" and "dynamic" kinetics the same as in the static and dynamic functions of Socionics, or is it a different concept?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    let's get some clarity with an example. Like the object is a tree. the event is wind blowing. the tree falls on the ground.

    can you fill in the values on the question mark...


    The static attribute = color of the tree is brown
    The dynamic attribute = position upright has changed to on the ground

    The static trait = ?
    The dynamic trait = ?

    The kinetic static energy = ?
    The kinetic dynamic energy = ?
    The potential static energy = ?
    The potential dynamic energy = ?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    let's get some clarity with an example. Like the object is a tree. the event is wind blowing. the tree falls on the ground.

    can you fill in the values on the question mark...


    The static attribute = color of the tree is brown
    The dynamic attribute = position upright has changed to on the ground

    The static trait = ?
    The dynamic trait = ?

    The kinetic static energy = ?
    The kinetic dynamic energy = ?
    The potential static energy = ?
    The potential dynamic energy = ?
    static potential: the tree is a tree. (the perception of the tree is conserved)
    dynamic potential: the tree is a trunk, or log, laying on the ground. (different interpretations of the tree)
    dynamic kinetic: the tree is decaying. (it is interrelating with its environment through physical change)
    static kinetic: the tree remains more or less intact. (it is not notably changing)

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Are your concepts of "static" and "dynamic" kinetics the same as in the static and dynamic functions of Socionics, or is it a different concept?
    This is something completely different. What I'm trying to emphasize is, UDP might perceive the tree has begun to decay; you might see it as on the ground, but intact.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited the primer.

    Expat:
    allow me to note the following: reform roughly corresponds to the anarchy/communitarianism political complementarity, whereas traditionalism includes the paleoconservative/paleolibertarian complementarities. From my PoV, you and UDP are in contrast: UDP is communitarian, and you are paleoconservative.

    I'd also like to draw attention to the following blog entry by Rick. This seems to indicate a polar divide between static potentialism (Rick) and dynamic potentialism (myself and labcoat). The one is focusing on the concept of psychic domain (he uses the term "realm") as a cultural/nationalistic phenomenon, while the other considers it a transnational interrelation of information flows. There again: the body of the nation vs. the transcendence of transnationalism.

    Rick's blog:
    http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...mmunities.html

  6. #6
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i would indeed drop the political names.

    by the way, is there any correlation between the four points you named and the four functions?

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find the political names helpful. If it's not because of some kind of trouble you're anticipating that you are considering to change them, I'd prefer that you kept them around.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    i would indeed drop the political names.

    by the way, is there any correlation between the four points you named and the four functions?
    Four functions? What do you mean?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    i would indeed drop the political names.
    Why would you drop them?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Updated; see topic notes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    i would indeed drop the political names.

    by the way, is there any correlation between the four points you named and the four functions?
    labcoat has suggested (in private) that the four lines -- which actually correspond to two complementary views each, but I am not discussing that here -- actually correspond to a desire to fulfill the aims of a dual function pairing. I could actually see that to a degree... although I'm not sure I understand how one would structure such a postulate. There do seem to be, however, "extroverted" and "introverted" elements to either view; liberals include progressive "field orients" and individualist "object orients" for example.

    Political orientation, obviously, has nothing at all to do with socionics function ordering. There are as many ESTp liberals as there are conservatives. Nor do I see any possible way political orientation could be related to subtypes.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Updated; see topic notes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    i would indeed drop the political names.

    by the way, is there any correlation between the four points you named and the four functions?
    labcoat has suggested (in private) that the four lines -- which actually correspond to two complementary views each, but I am not discussing that here -- actually correspond to a desire to fulfill the aims of a dual function pairing. I could actually see that to a degree... although I'm not sure I understand how one would structure such a postulate. There do seem to be, however, "extroverted" and "introverted" elements to either view; liberals include progressive "field orients" and individualist "object orients" for example.

    Political orientation, obviously, has nothing at all to do with socionics function ordering. There are as many ESTp liberals as there are conservatives. Nor do I see any possible way political orientation could be related to subtypes.

  12. #12
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aspects of information are NOT separated to each other, because if we would destroy one, the other would be destroyed too.

    Aspects are indissociable and interdependant. I insist on that term "ASPECT".

  13. #13
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aspects of information are NOT separated to each other, because if we would destroy one, the other would be destroyed too.

    Aspects are indissociable and interdependant. I insist on that term "ASPECT".

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Aspects of information are NOT separated to each other, because if we would destroy one, the other would be destroyed too.

    Aspects are indissociable and interdependant. I insist on that term "ASPECT".
    You are right... and yet, try telling a conservative to embrace a liberal vantagepoint. I didn't mean to say they are seperated, merely considered independently. And note, I said it was possible to reconcile them. The personal knowledge function considers them independently by invoking the aspect the person is most attuned with at the expense of its contrary, which personal knowledge considers abhorrent. (thus the motive of psychopathology) The base function apprehends personal knowledge information that has reconciled with objective reality via the determination function. Thus you are correct in as far as one would consider the base function: the aspects are not inseperable.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Aspects of information are NOT separated to each other, because if we would destroy one, the other would be destroyed too.

    Aspects are indissociable and interdependant. I insist on that term "ASPECT".
    You are right... and yet, try telling a conservative to embrace a liberal vantagepoint. I didn't mean to say they are seperated, merely considered independently. And note, I said it was possible to reconcile them. The personal knowledge function considers them independently by invoking the aspect the person is most attuned with at the expense of its contrary, which personal knowledge considers abhorrent. (thus the motive of psychopathology) The base function apprehends personal knowledge information that has reconciled with objective reality via the determination function. Thus you are correct in as far as one would consider the base function: the aspects are not inseperable.

  16. #16
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I'm not sure I understand how one would structure such a postulate. There do seem to be, however, "extroverted" and "introverted" elements to either view; liberals include progressive "field orients" and individualist "object orients" for example.
    See if this makes sense: one predicts the outcome of an event in accordance with the view of one's prefered domain, and contrasts the resulting image with that resulting from the predictions gleaned from the behavior and speech of others. Where predicted outcomes mismatch, disagreement ensues, and an effort is made to reshape the views of those one is opposed to.

    Perhaps that is what context determines: how we see the future.


  17. #17
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I'm not sure I understand how one would structure such a postulate. There do seem to be, however, "extroverted" and "introverted" elements to either view; liberals include progressive "field orients" and individualist "object orients" for example.
    See if this makes sense: one predicts the outcome of an event in accordance with the view of one's prefered domain, and contrasts the resulting image with that resulting from the predictions gleaned from the behavior and speech of others. Where predicted outcomes mismatch, disagreement ensues, and an effort is made to reshape the views of those one is opposed to.

    Perhaps that is what context determines: how we see the future.


  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I'm not sure I understand how one would structure such a postulate. There do seem to be, however, "extroverted" and "introverted" elements to either view; liberals include progressive "field orients" and individualist "object orients" for example.
    See if this makes sense: one predicts the outcome of an event in accordance with the view of one's prefered domain, and contrasts the resulting image with that resulting from the predictions gleaned from the behavior and speech of others. Where predicted outcomes mismatch, disagreement ensues, and an effort is made to reshape the views of those one is opposed to.

    Perhaps that is what context determines: how we see the future.

    Perhaps I could never have said it as well.

    Yes, that is an excellent explanation of what the contexts do. When under the auspice of a domain, one attempts to see the entire world in through that domain's lenses. Anything contrary to the lense does not make sense and is an impediment to "rational" procedure.

    One example of the domains at work is, right now in this very forum, the U.S. Socionics conference thread. Notice how some people are participating in it, and some aren't. From what I can deduce... (as of a few days ago anyway... I haven't checked it recently) the participants are -- to a person -- this forum's static kinetist population fragment.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I'm not sure I understand how one would structure such a postulate. There do seem to be, however, "extroverted" and "introverted" elements to either view; liberals include progressive "field orients" and individualist "object orients" for example.
    See if this makes sense: one predicts the outcome of an event in accordance with the view of one's prefered domain, and contrasts the resulting image with that resulting from the predictions gleaned from the behavior and speech of others. Where predicted outcomes mismatch, disagreement ensues, and an effort is made to reshape the views of those one is opposed to.

    Perhaps that is what context determines: how we see the future.

    Perhaps I could never have said it as well.

    Yes, that is an excellent explanation of what the contexts do. When under the auspice of a domain, one attempts to see the entire world in through that domain's lenses. Anything contrary to the lense does not make sense and is an impediment to "rational" procedure.

    One example of the domains at work is, right now in this very forum, the U.S. Socionics conference thread. Notice how some people are participating in it, and some aren't. From what I can deduce... (as of a few days ago anyway... I haven't checked it recently) the participants are -- to a person -- this forum's static kinetist population fragment.

  20. #20
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have a question; to what extent do you think it is possible for a person to have a secundary preference for one of the context lines flanking his own..? Also, can a person change context line, or is ones attitude to them fixed for a lifetime?

    Recently I've been feeling that there's a devious little reformer hidden inside of me... :wink:

  21. #21
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have a question; to what extent do you think it is possible for a person to have a secundary preference for one of the context lines flanking his own..? Also, can a person change context line, or is ones attitude to them fixed for a lifetime?

    Recently I've been feeling that there's a devious little reformer hidden inside of me... :wink:

  22. #22
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    One example of the domains at work is, right now in this very forum, the U.S. Socionics conference thread. Notice how some people are participating in it, and some aren't. From what I can deduce... (as of a few days ago anyway... I haven't checked it recently) the participants are -- to a person -- this forum's static kinetist population fragment.
    That's bollocks isn't it?
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  23. #23
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    One example of the domains at work is, right now in this very forum, the U.S. Socionics conference thread. Notice how some people are participating in it, and some aren't. From what I can deduce... (as of a few days ago anyway... I haven't checked it recently) the participants are -- to a person -- this forum's static kinetist population fragment.
    That's bollocks isn't it?
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    I have a question; to what extent do you think it is possible for a person to have a secundary preference for one of the context lines flanking his own..? Also, can a person change context line, or is ones attitude to them fixed for a lifetime?

    Recently I've been feeling that there's a devious little reformer hidden inside of me... :wink:
    That's a good question, one to which I don't know the answer. I sympathize with your there... there is definitely a strong reformist bent in me, although it could be the result of a strong relationship with my reformer mother (an INTj), as opposed to a somewhat estranged relationship with my traditionalist father (an ENFp).

    And the question of Clinton's determination to bridge? But I imagine one wins out because you can't have an even tie, you must take a side. Still... I can easily image there being competitions for second and third place amongst the other two, even the other three perhaps? (though one would imagine the contrary position would always be the biggest loser.)

    It would be worthwhile for such a question to be investigated further. I can see the uses of such knowledge.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    One example of the domains at work is, right now in this very forum, the U.S. Socionics conference thread. Notice how some people are participating in it, and some aren't. From what I can deduce... (as of a few days ago anyway... I haven't checked it recently) the participants are -- to a person -- this forum's static kinetist population fragment.
    That's bollocks isn't it?
    Actually I was referring to the wrong thread. I meant to refer to the thread Mystic Sonic started, asking where people were in the country as a means to ascertify the conference's ideal location.

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    UDP, have you read this?

Posting Permissions

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