Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: A hypothesis

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

    Default A hypothesis...

    I intend to suggest that our perception of what functions "mean" or "do" is directly contingent upon our political views; so to say, on our psychic subdomain of choice. I say this because although I have put forward functional definitions that make sense to me, others have disagreed with them. To try to bridge these disagreements I am presenting alternative interpretations of the functions here.


    SP = Static Potential/Conservative Viewpoint
    SK = Static Kinetic/Republican-Traditionalist Viewpoint
    DK = Dynamic Kinetic/Social Progressive-Nationalistic Viewpoint
    DP = Dynamic Potential/Liberal-Progressive Viewpoint

    Introverted Intuition (Sequential Intuition)

    SP - depth of perception
    SK - cycles
    DK - evolutionary progression
    DP - breadth of considerations


    Extroverted Intuition (Instance Intuition)

    SP - few instances, high detail
    SK - limited opportunity ranges
    DK - adaptation opportunity
    DP - many instances, low detail


    Extroverted Sensation (Force Sensation)

    SP - magnitude of forces
    SK - static/restraining forces
    DK - changing/adapting forces
    DP - quantity of forces


    Introverted Sensation (Interrelational Sensation)

    SP - somatic interrelations
    SK - continuous interrelations
    DK - spontaneous interrelations
    DP - group interrelations


    Extroverted Thinking (Relational Communication and Exchange)

    SP - physical exchanges
    SK - static exchanges
    DK - changing exchanges
    DP - information exchanges


    Introverted Thinking (Structure)

    SP - structural depth
    SK - persistent structure
    DK - changing structure
    DP - structural breadth


    Introverted Feeling (Emotion)

    SP - depth of feeling
    SK - enduring feeling
    DK - changing feeling
    DP - plural feeling


    Extroverted Feeling (Experience)

    SP - depth experience
    SE - experience of stability
    DK - experience of change
    DP - plural experience
    I am not suggesting that one attempts to perceive the world through the lense of one viewpoint alone; (at least not normally) but rather that our perspectives on the functions are constantly shifting and changing along several polarities. (sometimes we choose the static kinetic view, others the static potential view, etc.) In particular, preferring a view that emphasizes one extreme will shut off our willingness to perceive its opposite. I suspect this tendency, which I believe manifests in all of us, is the root of our many arguments over what a function "is", regardless of issues of type.

  2. #2
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    how do aspects of reality have something to do with political points of view ?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because, if you have a clear preference for one aspect, then you will by virtue of that preference ignore the other due to time constraints. Take dynamic potentialism vs static potentialism, for example. The dynamic potentialist focuses on breadth, considering many ideas in the same timeframe that a static potentialist considers one idea in great depth. The question is, why switch?

    By virtue of the constantly changing nature of reality, change-oriented people are witness to an avalanche of new ideas and perceptions. They must sort the ones that work from the ones that don't, and in a way that meets the demands of reality. It's a question of opportunity cost: they have no time to consider an ideas in great depth and detail -- as static people do -- due to the ever changing nature of reality, unless they can somehow seal themselves off from it.

    The biggest issue is risk: letting yourself embrace the aspect opposite your preferred aspect takes a great amount of energy if you are determined to consider it within a reasonable timeframe. This means letting down your guard to potential threats....

    Because we cannot, in the interest of survival, reconcile our preferred aspects with their opposites without intervention from others, we have allowed the divisions between the aspects to define our macrosocial relationships. It is not simply that the aspects correlate to the political spectrum, they are the cause of it.

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That is also how I see socionics and everything related: nature's answer to the frame problem.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Augusta
    Potential = N
    Kinetic = S
    SP =
    DP =
    SK =
    DK =

    Tcaud's model is a fractal model of aspects of reality.

    Te SP, for example, means aspect of

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by Augusta
    Potential = N
    Kinetic = S
    SP =
    DP =
    SK =
    DK =

    Tcaud's model is a fractal model of aspects of reality.

    Te SP, for example, means aspect of
    It may have been a little too soon for you to have set the aspects to functions....

    I had not yet discussed it in the primer thread because it is somewhat difficult to conceive (and I have not identified the "sub aspects" yet)... but even splits appear to exist within each line. For example, static kineticism has "ruler" and "servant" halves: the "ruling" institutionalist, who knows the political ins and outs of their institution makes a place for the "servant", who has tried but failed to make a place for themselves on their own due to personal inadequacies that they will not allow others to help them compensate for. (thus the dynamic kinetist Einstein's argument to Freud over the nature of violence as being a creation of "mercenaries who serve war mongering elites.")

    I only realized that the sub aspects existed at all because I found that the relative Model-A ring positions of characters in dialogue is a determinant of their relational quality. In particular, two functions above or below one's own position seems to indicate the position of one's contrary line, divided into two parts respectively. But how does one explain this!? It is easy enough to explain as regards the relationships of the positions to each other (personal knowledge detests suggestivity, base detests personal knowledge)... but it seems to speak to a deeper level of philosophical consideration. I suspect it is not the place of a psychologist to treat it properly. For that matter, I could believe this question best answered by a INTj-ESFp, perhaps. Or INTj-ENFp?

    I didn't want to get into this in General Discussion because it is not "canon" socionics, and I know you static kinetists (the institutionalists, at least) hate that. ...I want to try to work with you guys once I get my degree: overthowing an institution is unnecessarily chaotic and historically useless, and I would much prefer to mediate reform between you and them. You aren't making my preparations for this chore any easier, however.

Posting Permissions

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