Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Contentists vs Structuralists

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Contentists vs. Structuralists

    This thread is an attempt to get some sort of clear discussion going between two different approaches to Socionics.

    CONTENTISTS
    On one hand, you have what I call the contentists. These people point to descriptions of typical interests associated with the quadras as being the most reliable typing method. For example, in their view, being interested in intellectual discussion "just for the fun of it" basically means one is Alpha. Interest in drama and artistic expression would be Beta. And so on. Generally, they don't put a lot of stock into temperaments, as these often contradict typings based on content/interest-based quadra descriptions.

    The contentists often point out that the quadra descriptions are an official part of Socionics, seem to be connected with common-sense definitions of the functions, and provide a clear and compelling approach for typing. The chief weakness is that content-based typings often don't fit with temperament; for example, a person may have "Alpha interests" but be N and have Ip temperament. Also, content interest isn't always stable; a person may be interested in many things, which would appear to cause someone to be in more than one quadra.

    STRUCTURALISTS
    Then there are the structuralists. These people believe that people have a certain style of thinking and expressing themselves that's more fundamental than any particular content interest. They see content interest as something that may be quite flexible. For example, in their view, a person may be interested in what the quadra descriptions would say are Alpha sorts of things, but still not be Alpha.

    The structuralists often point out that type is something that is fundamental and ingrained, and not dependent on whatever subject matter a person is focusing on at any given time, or even on changes in a person's belief system or philosophy (e.g., changing between a materialist and anti-materialist point of view). The chief weakness of the structuralist view is that it doesn't seem to either explain the contentist viewpoint or state clearly what's wrong with it. Hence, contentism is never fully defeated.

    ATTEMPTS TO MERGE THE VIEWS
    Then there's Tcaud's whole exertion thing, which I don't quite understand, but I think it's just basically embracing the contentist and structualist approaches and therefore giving a person two types. The challenge here is in fleshing out the details of what it means, for example, for someone to be "INTp-INTj," and proving that such types exist in real life, and aren't just the result of misunderstanding.

    One possible related approach is to think of one's structural type as sort of like one's basic hardware or operating system, whereas content types may be more like various software programs that ride above it. It isn't clear that there has to have just one predominant content type; it seems that one may have several.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Contentists vs. Structuralists

    This thread is an attempt to get some sort of clear discussion going between two different approaches to Socionics.

    CONTENTISTS
    On one hand, you have what I call the contentists. These people point to descriptions of typical interests associated with the quadras as being the most reliable typing method. For example, in their view, being interested in intellectual discussion "just for the fun of it" basically means one is Alpha. Interest in drama and artistic expression would be Beta. And so on. Generally, they don't put a lot of stock into temperaments, as these often contradict typings based on content/interest-based quadra descriptions.

    The contentists often point out that the quadra descriptions are an official part of Socionics, seem to be connected with common-sense definitions of the functions, and provide a clear and compelling approach for typing. The chief weakness is that content-based typings often don't fit with temperament; for example, a person may have "Alpha interests" but be N and have Ip temperament. Also, content interest isn't always stable; a person may be interested in many things, which would appear to cause someone to be in more than one quadra.

    STRUCTURALISTS
    Then there are the structuralists. These people believe that people have a certain style of thinking and expressing themselves that's more fundamental than any particular content interest. They see content interest as something that may be quite flexible. For example, in their view, a person may be interested in what the quadra descriptions would say are Alpha sorts of things, but still not be Alpha.

    The structuralists often point out that type is something that is fundamental and ingrained, and not dependent on whatever subject matter a person is focusing on at any given time, or even on changes in a person's belief system or philosophy (e.g., changing between a materialist and anti-materialist point of view). The chief weakness of the structuralist view is that it doesn't seem to either explain the contentist viewpoint or state clearly what's wrong with it. Hence, contentism is never fully defeated.

    ATTEMPTS TO MERGE THE VIEWS
    Then there's Tcaud's whole exertion thing, which I don't quite understand, but I think it's just basically embracing the contentist and structualist approaches and therefore giving a person two types. The challenge here is in fleshing out the details of what it means, for example, for someone to be "INTp-INTj," and proving that such types exist in real life, and aren't just the result of misunderstanding.

    One possible related approach is to think of one's structural type as sort of like one's basic hardware or operating system, whereas content types may be more like various software programs that ride above it. It isn't clear that there has to have just one predominant content type; it seems that one may have several.

  3. #3
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,614
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.

    Using two types is unnecessary. I do understand where tc is coming from with exertion theory, but I think the problem is due to poor nomenclature: "information metabolism" includes input as well as output, if not in classical socionics theory, then still in reality.

  4. #4
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,614
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.

    Using two types is unnecessary. I do understand where tc is coming from with exertion theory, but I think the problem is due to poor nomenclature: "information metabolism" includes input as well as output, if not in classical socionics theory, then still in reality.

  5. #5
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.

    Using two types is unnecessary. I do understand where tc is coming from with exertion theory, but I think the problem is due to poor nomenclature: "information metabolism" includes input as well as output, if not in classical socionics theory, then still in reality.
    nah... it does in "classical socionics" as well.

  6. #6
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.

    Using two types is unnecessary. I do understand where tc is coming from with exertion theory, but I think the problem is due to poor nomenclature: "information metabolism" includes input as well as output, if not in classical socionics theory, then still in reality.
    nah... it does in "classical socionics" as well.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jonathan's approach here, where he is using a dichotomy to divide the understanding of Socionics into two kinds -- contentist understanding and strucuralist understanding -- and even his way of phrasing it (a linguistic analysis of the kind he is looking for in his thread The Linguistic Analysis Game of his style of writing here would come to the same result) is very similar to how Robert M. Pirsig ( http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1...r=asc&start=90 ) describes Phaedrus's use of this "analytic knife" (an "intellectual scalpel" that Phaedrus is using in order to reveal the world of underlying forms) in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirisig first good explanation of this method can be found in chapter six of that book.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jonathan's approach here, where he is using a dichotomy to divide the understanding of Socionics into two kinds -- contentist understanding and strucuralist understanding -- and even his way of phrasing it (a linguistic analysis of the kind he is looking for in his thread The Linguistic Analysis Game of his style of writing here would come to the same result) is very similar to how Robert M. Pirsig ( http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1...r=asc&start=90 ) describes Phaedrus's use of this "analytic knife" (an "intellectual scalpel" that Phaedrus is using in order to reveal the world of underlying forms) in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirisig first good explanation of this method can be found in chapter six of that book.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Jonathan's approach here, where he is using a dichotomy to divide the understanding of Socionics into two kinds -- contentist understanding and strucuralist understanding -- and even his way of phrasing it (a linguistic analysis of the kind he is looking for in his thread The Linguistic Analysis Game of his style of writing here would come to the same result) is very similar to how Robert M. Pirsig ( http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1...r=asc&start=90 ) describes Phaedrus's use of this "analytic knife" (an "intellectual scalpel" that Phaedrus is using in order to reveal the world of underlying forms) in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirisig first good explanation of this method can be found in chapter six of that book.
    So many people over the years have said that I should read that book.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Jonathan's approach here, where he is using a dichotomy to divide the understanding of Socionics into two kinds -- contentist understanding and strucuralist understanding -- and even his way of phrasing it (a linguistic analysis of the kind he is looking for in his thread The Linguistic Analysis Game of his style of writing here would come to the same result) is very similar to how Robert M. Pirsig ( http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1...r=asc&start=90 ) describes Phaedrus's use of this "analytic knife" (an "intellectual scalpel" that Phaedrus is using in order to reveal the world of underlying forms) in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirisig first good explanation of this method can be found in chapter six of that book.
    So many people over the years have said that I should read that book.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.
    In theory, or in general, there is no conflict. But in the specific application I have in mind in Socionics, there is. It's why, for example, Joy (who seems to be an advocate for the contentist position) will say a person is one type, whereas a structuralist will disagree and say that the person is a different type. It's basically why most of the disagreements in, say, the video thread and other threads on the forum occur.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.
    In theory, or in general, there is no conflict. But in the specific application I have in mind in Socionics, there is. It's why, for example, Joy (who seems to be an advocate for the contentist position) will say a person is one type, whereas a structuralist will disagree and say that the person is a different type. It's basically why most of the disagreements in, say, the video thread and other threads on the forum occur.

  13. #13
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Jonathan's approach here, where he is using a dichotomy to divide the understanding of Socionics into two kinds -- contentist understanding and strucuralist understanding -- and even his way of phrasing it (a linguistic analysis of the kind he is looking for in his thread The Linguistic Analysis Game of his style of writing here would come to the same result) is very similar to how Robert M. Pirsig ( http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1...r=asc&start=90 ) describes Phaedrus's use of this "analytic knife" (an "intellectual scalpel" that Phaedrus is using in order to reveal the world of underlying forms) in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirisig first good explanation of this method can be found in chapter six of that book.
    Now you also speak about yourself in third person...?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  14. #14
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Jonathan's approach here, where he is using a dichotomy to divide the understanding of Socionics into two kinds -- contentist understanding and strucuralist understanding -- and even his way of phrasing it (a linguistic analysis of the kind he is looking for in his thread The Linguistic Analysis Game of his style of writing here would come to the same result) is very similar to how Robert M. Pirsig ( http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1...r=asc&start=90 ) describes Phaedrus's use of this "analytic knife" (an "intellectual scalpel" that Phaedrus is using in order to reveal the world of underlying forms) in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirisig first good explanation of this method can be found in chapter six of that book.
    Now you also speak about yourself in third person...?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  15. #15
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    omfg

  16. #16
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    omfg

  17. #17
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.
    In theory, or in general, there is no conflict. But in the specific application I have in mind in Socionics, there is. It's why, for example, Joy (who seems to be an advocate for the contentist position) will say a person is one type, whereas a structuralist will disagree and say that the person is a different type. It's basically why most of the disagreements in, say, the video thread and other threads on the forum occur.
    You are approximately 98% incorrect.

  18. #18
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.
    In theory, or in general, there is no conflict. But in the specific application I have in mind in Socionics, there is. It's why, for example, Joy (who seems to be an advocate for the contentist position) will say a person is one type, whereas a structuralist will disagree and say that the person is a different type. It's basically why most of the disagreements in, say, the video thread and other threads on the forum occur.
    You are approximately 98% incorrect.

  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 thehotelambush
    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.

    Using two types is unnecessary. I do understand where tc is coming from with exertion theory, but I think the problem is due to poor nomenclature: "information metabolism" includes input as well as output, if not in classical socionics theory, then still in reality.
    Are you sure? That may not be the case. The question of what information metabolism is or isn't... is completely a matter of how Kempinsky described it.

    And given that we have no translations of his work (into English), we can only use Augusta's definition. I suspect Augusta framed socionics via Kempinsky's work, specifically inserting Jung's functions into the IM structure created by Kempinsky. If Kempinsky had gone father... then we might not be talking of only 16 types today.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.

    Using two types is unnecessary. I do understand where tc is coming from with exertion theory, but I think the problem is due to poor nomenclature: "information metabolism" includes input as well as output, if not in classical socionics theory, then still in reality.
    Are you sure? That may not be the case. The question of what information metabolism is or isn't... is completely a matter of how Kempinsky described it.

    And given that we have no translations of his work (into English), we can only use Augusta's definition. I suspect Augusta framed socionics via Kempinsky's work, specifically inserting Jung's functions into the IM structure created by Kempinsky. If Kempinsky had gone father... then we might not be talking of only 16 types today.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Contentists vs. Structuralists

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    This thread is an attempt to get some sort of clear discussion going between two different approaches to Socionics.


    STRUCTURALISTS
    Then there are the structuralists. These people believe that people have a certain style of thinking and expressing themselves that's more fundamental than any particular content interest. They see content interest as something that may be quite flexible. For example, in their view, a person may be interested in what the quadra descriptions would say are Alpha sorts of things, but still not be Alpha.
    but of course.

    The structuralists often point out that type is something that is fundamental and ingrained, and not dependent on whatever subject matter a person is focusing on at any given time, or even on changes in a person's belief system or philosophy (e.g., changing between a materialist and anti-materialist point of view). The chief weakness of the structuralist view is that it doesn't seem to either explain the contentist viewpoint or state clearly what's wrong with it. Hence, contentism is never fully defeated.
    perhaps nobody has tried; i certainly didn't even see any dichotomy like this that you're talking about.

    as the "contentist" viewpoint points out, quadras are a fundamental construct of socionics theory. that doesn't mean that they are the all-encompassing end of socionics theory. quadra values are something inherent to every type, but their expression does not outweight other expressions of type such as manifestations of particular functions in a mode- A-esque manner.

    it should be obvious that types can engage in behaviors unrelated to the "overall vibe" of their particular quadra. in general, with a full quadra, types could be said to tend towards the sort of behavior that their quadra indicates. nonetheless, to suggest, for example, that a particular type who has an interest in drama must be beta is absurd. would it be all that unusual to encounter an ESE or an SEI with an interest in drama?

    you appear to be drastically overstating the importance of these quadra values, even in the context of this contentist perspective, which i never found to be particularly contentious (no pun intended) at all.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Contentists vs. Structuralists

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    This thread is an attempt to get some sort of clear discussion going between two different approaches to Socionics.


    STRUCTURALISTS
    Then there are the structuralists. These people believe that people have a certain style of thinking and expressing themselves that's more fundamental than any particular content interest. They see content interest as something that may be quite flexible. For example, in their view, a person may be interested in what the quadra descriptions would say are Alpha sorts of things, but still not be Alpha.
    but of course.

    The structuralists often point out that type is something that is fundamental and ingrained, and not dependent on whatever subject matter a person is focusing on at any given time, or even on changes in a person's belief system or philosophy (e.g., changing between a materialist and anti-materialist point of view). The chief weakness of the structuralist view is that it doesn't seem to either explain the contentist viewpoint or state clearly what's wrong with it. Hence, contentism is never fully defeated.
    perhaps nobody has tried; i certainly didn't even see any dichotomy like this that you're talking about.

    as the "contentist" viewpoint points out, quadras are a fundamental construct of socionics theory. that doesn't mean that they are the all-encompassing end of socionics theory. quadra values are something inherent to every type, but their expression does not outweight other expressions of type such as manifestations of particular functions in a mode- A-esque manner.

    it should be obvious that types can engage in behaviors unrelated to the "overall vibe" of their particular quadra. in general, with a full quadra, types could be said to tend towards the sort of behavior that their quadra indicates. nonetheless, to suggest, for example, that a particular type who has an interest in drama must be beta is absurd. would it be all that unusual to encounter an ESE or an SEI with an interest in drama?

    you appear to be drastically overstating the importance of these quadra values, even in the context of this contentist perspective, which i never found to be particularly contentious (no pun intended) at all.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Jonathan's approach here, where he is using a dichotomy to divide the understanding of Socionics into two kinds -- contentist understanding and strucuralist understanding -- and even his way of phrasing it (a linguistic analysis of the kind he is looking for in his thread The Linguistic Analysis Game of his style of writing here would come to the same result) is very similar to how Robert M. Pirsig ( http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1...r=asc&start=90 ) describes Phaedrus's use of this "analytic knife" (an "intellectual scalpel" that Phaedrus is using in order to reveal the world of underlying forms) in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirisig first good explanation of this method can be found in chapter six of that book.
    Now you also speak about yourself in third person...?
    No. Pirsig's alter ego in that autobiographical book is called "Phaedrus" from the Socratic dialogue with the same name. But of course it is no accident that we share the same name and the same type ...

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Jonathan's approach here, where he is using a dichotomy to divide the understanding of Socionics into two kinds -- contentist understanding and strucuralist understanding -- and even his way of phrasing it (a linguistic analysis of the kind he is looking for in his thread The Linguistic Analysis Game of his style of writing here would come to the same result) is very similar to how Robert M. Pirsig ( http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1...r=asc&start=90 ) describes Phaedrus's use of this "analytic knife" (an "intellectual scalpel" that Phaedrus is using in order to reveal the world of underlying forms) in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirisig first good explanation of this method can be found in chapter six of that book.
    Now you also speak about yourself in third person...?
    No. Pirsig's alter ego in that autobiographical book is called "Phaedrus" from the Socratic dialogue with the same name. But of course it is no accident that we share the same name and the same type ...

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

    Default

    Pulling us out of Phaedrus country....

    The concepts being described in this thread as structuralism and contentalism appear to similar, if not identical, to my descriptions of ideological potentialists and kinetists.

    In particular, the potentialists/structuralists attempt to define limits to the manifestations of event. Kinetists/contentalists, on the other hand, tend to see the world as completely subject to its environs. (although perhaps the analogy does not hold completely because static kinetists believe in the dominance of DNA. Perhaps we should suggest then that a minority are true contentalists?)

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

    Default

    Pulling us out of Phaedrus country....

    The concepts being described in this thread as structuralism and contentalism appear to similar, if not identical, to my descriptions of ideological potentialists and kinetists.

    In particular, the potentialists/structuralists attempt to define limits to the manifestations of event. Kinetists/contentalists, on the other hand, tend to see the world as completely subject to its environs. (although perhaps the analogy does not hold completely because static kinetists believe in the dominance of DNA. Perhaps we should suggest then that a minority are true contentalists?)

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was beginning to understand until that last post. Now I'm in the wilderness again.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was beginning to understand until that last post. Now I'm in the wilderness again.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  29. #29
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    According to those descriptions I'm a structuralist at heart.

    The truth though, lies at the point that all views converge to.

  30. #30
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    According to those descriptions I'm a structuralist at heart.

    The truth though, lies at the point that all views converge to.

  31. #31
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,936
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Contentists vs. Structuralists

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    ATTEMPTS TO MERGE THE VIEWS
    Then there's Tcaud's whole exertion thing, which I don't quite understand, but I think it's just basically embracing the contentist and structualist approaches and therefore giving a person two types. The challenge here is in fleshing out the details of what it means, for example, for someone to be "INTp-INTj," and proving that such types exist in real life, and aren't just the result of misunderstanding.

    One possible related approach is to think of one's structural type as sort of like one's basic hardware or operating system, whereas content types may be more like various software programs that ride above it. It isn't clear that there has to have just one predominant content type; it seems that one may have several.
    That's just wrong - it's like having the colours red, blue, yellow and green and calling something 'red-blue' when you could just call it 'purple'. You can't be INTp AND INTj - I think if there is anything like INTj-INTp (which there prolly is, like the potential infinite colours in a rainbow etc.), it should have its own distinct name and\or a new model which includes these new types (I think the subtypes thing can fit satisfactorily into the current model). A supposed 'INTp-INTj' shouldn't be composed of part INTj + part INTp descriptions, as though it was some hash - the descriptions should be developed from experience of those supposed people.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  32. #32
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,936
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Contentists vs. Structuralists

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    ATTEMPTS TO MERGE THE VIEWS
    Then there's Tcaud's whole exertion thing, which I don't quite understand, but I think it's just basically embracing the contentist and structualist approaches and therefore giving a person two types. The challenge here is in fleshing out the details of what it means, for example, for someone to be "INTp-INTj," and proving that such types exist in real life, and aren't just the result of misunderstanding.

    One possible related approach is to think of one's structural type as sort of like one's basic hardware or operating system, whereas content types may be more like various software programs that ride above it. It isn't clear that there has to have just one predominant content type; it seems that one may have several.
    That's just wrong - it's like having the colours red, blue, yellow and green and calling something 'red-blue' when you could just call it 'purple'. You can't be INTp AND INTj - I think if there is anything like INTj-INTp (which there prolly is, like the potential infinite colours in a rainbow etc.), it should have its own distinct name and\or a new model which includes these new types (I think the subtypes thing can fit satisfactorily into the current model). A supposed 'INTp-INTj' shouldn't be composed of part INTj + part INTp descriptions, as though it was some hash - the descriptions should be developed from experience of those supposed people.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  33. #33
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,614
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.
    In theory, or in general, there is no conflict.
    ok, I think we're on the same page for that.

    But in the specific application I have in mind in Socionics, there is. It's why, for example, Joy (who seems to be an advocate for the contentist position) will say a person is one type, whereas a structuralist will disagree and say that the person is a different type. It's basically why most of the disagreements in, say, the video thread and other threads on the forum occur.
    The simplest explanation is that one person's conception of the type is just incorrect. The fact that the disagreement looks like content vs. structure is probably due to stereotypes (such as based on MBTI). The stereotypes usually lie on the "content" side in MBTI (i.e. all INTjs are scientists) but there are key elements of type-related behavior that are pretty much content. The key is to balance the two properly.

  34. #34
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,614
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    I subscribe to both of these views, and see no conflict between them. You can construe something as content on one level, or form on another.
    In theory, or in general, there is no conflict.
    ok, I think we're on the same page for that.

    But in the specific application I have in mind in Socionics, there is. It's why, for example, Joy (who seems to be an advocate for the contentist position) will say a person is one type, whereas a structuralist will disagree and say that the person is a different type. It's basically why most of the disagreements in, say, the video thread and other threads on the forum occur.
    The simplest explanation is that one person's conception of the type is just incorrect. The fact that the disagreement looks like content vs. structure is probably due to stereotypes (such as based on MBTI). The stereotypes usually lie on the "content" side in MBTI (i.e. all INTjs are scientists) but there are key elements of type-related behavior that are pretty much content. The key is to balance the two properly.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Contentists vs. Structuralists

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    ATTEMPTS TO MERGE THE VIEWS
    Then there's Tcaud's whole exertion thing, which I don't quite understand, but I think it's just basically embracing the contentist and structualist approaches and therefore giving a person two types. The challenge here is in fleshing out the details of what it means, for example, for someone to be "INTp-INTj," and proving that such types exist in real life, and aren't just the result of misunderstanding.

    One possible related approach is to think of one's structural type as sort of like one's basic hardware or operating system, whereas content types may be more like various software programs that ride above it. It isn't clear that there has to have just one predominant content type; it seems that one may have several.
    That's just wrong - it's like having the colours red, blue, yellow and green and calling something 'red-blue' when you could just call it 'purple'. You can't be INTp AND INTj - I think if there is anything like INTj-INTp (which there prolly is, like the potential infinite colours in a rainbow etc.), it should have its own distinct name and\or a new model which includes these new types (I think the subtypes thing can fit satisfactorily into the current model). A supposed 'INTp-INTj' shouldn't be composed of part INTj + part INTp descriptions, as though it was some hash - the descriptions should be developed from experience of those supposed people.
    I don't think Tcaud means anything like that...it's not about merging typing descriptions. In fact, as far as I understand, INTj-INTp is not the same thing INTp-INTj. I wish he would explain his theory and its implications better, though. One thing that would be thrown off by it is the whole notion that a person prefers one function over another. Presumably, an INTj-INTp or INTp-INTj would value all functions, but in different ways.

    The way I see it, the structures that make up the basics of typologies are mathematical in nature, and may apply at many different levels, just the way the golden mean exists in many places in nature. That's how, possibly, people may have a different profile depending on which level is being discussed. But it's only a theory.

Posting Permissions

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