Accepting/Creating, Static/Dynamic, and Limiting/Empowering

[mikemex]

I see all of this as pointless, but I obviously don't value Ti.

[FDG]

Very interesting ideas indeed.

[krieger]

I see all of this as pointless, but I obviously don't value Ti.

Obviously.

Very interesting! Just to clarify, are these accepting/creating terms you use synonymous with the 1, 3, 5, 7 accepting functions and the 2, 4, 6, 8 producing functions of Model A, or something different entirely?

Yeah, those, and no, not something entirely different. I'd like to emphasize that Accepting and Producing are about as misleading names as can be devised for them and in their current form only make sense in a very, very restricted context (apperantly one in which people are seen as transmitters and receptors of information...). If I had a say I'd call them "simple" and "complex" respectively. I sail on conventions when it prevents me from getting ostracized completely, though.

Could you give concrete examples of how this limiting/empowering dynamic would manifest differently, say between the different accepting and creative functions of an ENTp and INTj or ESFj and ISFp?

Sure. But as high as the level of abstraction is you're asking something very difficult of me. I can only give part of an answer.

First of all the background:
Static + Accepting makes Empowering
Dynamic + Creating makes Empowering
Static + Creating makes Limiting
Dynamic + Accepting makes Limiting

Descriptions of each are in the thread above.

The easiest of the types you asked about to understand is the ENTp.

ENTp's Ego Block: Empowering Static Intuition (empNe), Limiting Static Thinking (limTi).
The Ne of the ENTp is all about ranging over ways of understanding things. The ENTp litterally sees thousands of ways his observations can be combined into sensible "ideas". He doesn't want to limit himself, though. Each of the ideas is given the same attention; none are singled out. Ideas are "transient", "underdetermined of form" to ENTps and each individual idea is simply "arbitrary", "contingent" (hence why they love to cite alternatives when an INTj presents his singled out view). The Ti of an ENTp on the other hand is concerned with singling out an answer. Many of the possible ways he can fit things together are bound to have things in common, and when something is common between all ideas within a certain context, the ENTp locks it down as a fact. What you get is: a person who finds out the answer quicker than everyone else using his imagination.

Delve a bit deeper, though, and you get at the ENTp's Super-ID block, where s/he is the same as an ISFp except "weak":
ENTp's Super-ID Block: Limiting Dynamic Sensing (limSi), Empowering Dynamic Feeling (empFe)
What was it that triggered the imagination of the ENTp in the first place? This is where the "dynamic" functions come into play. Like I said "dynamic" functions are the functions of direct observation and direct registering of language. Since Si is Sensing what we're concerned with here is not something abstract but very concrete. Point at something and there it is. That there, not something else. Si can concern anything from a perceived picture to a sound heard from a first person perspective (though not objects themselves that have real life specifications; always the perspective from which objects are seen*). The fact that the ENTp is weak in this block means he doesn't pay much attention to how the sounds and pictures are placed in a sequence or graph. This he largely ignores (the ISFp knows better; she'll tell you all the details of a film after recognizing a single image of it). He doesn't navigate by them, but they are significant to him. How? Well, in that this stuff is exactly the stuff that he is trying to organize when he ranges over ideas. His ideas are simply combinations of these perspectives: this sound goes with this picture, this word with that film - and what do you get - there's your idea; an association network. The fact that empNe and limSi form an Accepting axis with the Dynamic bit being Limiting and the Static bit being Empowering, means that this single observed perspective creates an explosion of associations. This is what Accepting function axes do. The person has no questions about the stuff that was given at face value; s/he simply accepts that bit and doesn't worry about it. S/he does form tons of associations as to what happened behind the screens that brought the percept about.
I'm left with one function to explain: Creating Empowering Fe; a Dynamic Judging function. Remember that I spoke about the ENTp trying to single out an answer earlier. Fe concerns the social/emotional problem that the ENTp was trying to solve in the first place. As an Empowering Dynamic function, Creating Fe is a function of wonder and curiosity. It's something that is there but the person expects the bit of reality it pertains to to be of deeper significance that the stuff that was given to him/her. So this function presents a question, a problem. I'm back at go.

The other types would take me a similar amount of effort to get into.

* I do not mean to imply that a perspective of this kind does not have specifications; that would be non-sensical... The difference between perspective and object is difficult to put into words, but not too difficult to grasp intuitively. A way to understand: to know an object is to excercise reason on one's observations. Knowledge of a perspective is immediate. In socionics: Static (behind the screens) Perception must be Creating (complex, constructed from multiple observations) to be Limiting (known singled out). Dynamic (face value) Perception must be Accepting (simple, pertaining to one observation) to be Limiting (known singled out).

[RSV3]

Obviously.



Yeah, those, and no, not something entirely different. I'd like to emphasize that Accepting and Producing are about as misleading names as can be devised for them and in their current form only make sense in a very, very restricted context (apperantly one in which people are seen as transmitters and receptors of information...). If I had a say I'd call them "simple" and "complex" respectively. I sail on conventions when it prevents me from getting ostracized completely, though.



Sure. But as high as the level of abstraction is you're asking something very difficult of me. I can only give part of an answer.

First of all the background:
Static + Accepting makes Empowering
Dynamic + Creating makes Empowering
Static + Creating makes Limiting
Dynamic + Accepting makes Limiting

Descriptions of each are in the thread above.

The easiest of the types you asked about to understand is the ENTp.

ENTp's Ego Block: Empowering Static Intuition (empNe), Limiting Static Thinking (limTi).
The Ne of the ENTp is all about ranging over ways of understanding things. The ENTp litterally sees thousands of ways his observations can be combined into sensible "ideas". He doesn't want to limit himself, though. Each of the ideas is given the same attention; none are singled out. Ideas are "transient", "underdetermined of form" to ENTps and each individual idea is simply "arbitrary", "contingent" (hence why they love to cite alternatives when an INTj presents his singled out view). The Ti of an ENTp on the other hand is concerned with singling out an answer. Many of the possible ways he can fit things together are bound to have things in common, and when something is common between all ideas within a certain context, the ENTp locks it down as a fact. What you get is: a person who finds out the answer quicker than everyone else using his imagination.

Delve a bit deeper, though, and you get at the ENTp's Super-ID block, where s/he is the same as an ISFp except "weak":
ENTp's Super-ID Block: Limiting Dynamic Sensing (limSi), Empowering Dynamic Feeling (empFe)
What was it that triggered the imagination of the ENTp in the first place? This is where the "dynamic" functions come into play. Like I said "dynamic" functions are the functions of direct observation and direct registering of language. Since Si is Sensing what we're concerned with here is not something abstract but very concrete. Point at something and there it is. That there, not something else. Si can concern anything from a perceived picture to a sound heard from a first person perspective (though not objects themselves that have real life specifications; always the perspective from which objects are seen*). The fact that the ENTp is weak in this block means he doesn't pay much attention to how the sounds and pictures are placed in a sequence or graph. This he largely ignores (the ISFp knows better; she'll tell you all the details of a film after recognizing a single image of it). He doesn't navigate by them, but they are significant to him. How? Well, in that this stuff is exactly the stuff that he is trying to organize when he ranges over ideas. His ideas are simply combinations of these perspectives: this sound goes with this picture, this word with that film - and what do you get - there's your idea; an association network. The fact that empNe and limSi form an Accepting axis with the Dynamic bit being Limiting and the Static bit being Empowering, means that this single observed perspective creates an explosion of associations. This is what Accepting function axes do. The person has no questions about the stuff that was given at face value; s/he simply accepts that bit and doesn't worry about it. S/he does form tons of associations as to what happened behind the screens that brought the percept about.
I'm left with one function to explain: Creating Empowering Fe; a Dynamic Judging function. Remember that I spoke about the ENTp trying to single out an answer earlier. Fe concerns the social/emotional problem that the ENTp was trying to solve in the first place. As an Empowering Dynamic function, Creating Fe is a function of wonder and curiosity. It's something that is there but the person expects the bit of reality it pertains to to be of deeper significance that the stuff that was given to him/her. So this function presents a question, a problem. I'm back at go.

The other types would take me a similar amount of effort to get into.

* I do not mean to imply that a perspective of this kind does not have specifications; that would be non-sensical... The difference between perspective and object is difficult to put into words, but not too difficult to grasp intuitively. A way to understand: to know an object is to excercise reason on one's observations. Knowledge of a perspective is immediate. In socionics: Static (behind the screens) Perception must be Creating (complex, constructed from multiple observations) to be Limiting (known singled out). Dynamic (face value) Perception must be Accepting (simple, pertaining to one observation) to be Limiting (known singled out).

Thanks. That helped to clarify things.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Too simplified. Once you have the opposite, you can give it to others. Ie, being around tough people sooner or later is only gonna make you have a tougher skin yourself. That's a good building block for people just starting relationships though. But then it gets complicated fast.

[krieger]

Too simplified

I don't get it. You want my writings to be MORE complicated? Am I not trying hard enough?

INTj (also applies to ESFj with a different focus):
Accepting/Empowering Ti: cartesian doubt. The sense that each constatated fact can be linked to an infinite variety of interpretations such that each individual interpretation is merely arbitrary and of no absolute significance. Reduction of matters of truth to matters of proof. The ability to take a certain standpoint for the sake of it's illocutionary use. Self-posession.
Creating/Limiting Ne: trancendental aesthetics. The thorough studying of ideas, not satisfied with their simple evaluation but with their significance and use. Chiseling and perfecting of ideas with the aim of making them maximally suited to their purpose. An interest in ideas for their own sake, tempered by the belief that some ideas are better than others. The desire to find a way of formulating the problem in light of which the required answers are trivialties.
Accepting/Limiting Fe: naive hedonism. The aim of all human action is to maximize happiness and minimize pain in the direct observable situation. If systems of morality cause harm in practice they will be discarded, overridden, no matter how well thought through. Moral flexibility; the checking of moral teachings against reality by seeing if they really help the world along.
Creating/Empowering Si: ideosyncratic referencing. In communication people use whatever words and terms get the job of getting a point across done. Terms rarely have meanings that are set in stone. The aim in communication is to find out what a person is getting at, and doing so is never a matter of litteral interpretation.

What is a type?

A type is a perceptual bias. It is also a dogma as to how the world outside of us works. A belief as to what one can and can not predict and how one goes about doing so.

It is a naive thing to think that any of these dogmas are any more right than the others. They are dogmas after all. At best they are internally consistent, and useful. Strictly speaking, all types are wrong. Usually there exist external institutionalizations of the dogmas that each of the types hold, though, and within certain climates it is often perfectly acceptable to think in right/wrong terms because these institutionalized dogmas are collectively acknowledged.

The type is strongly linked to the notion of inductive thought. It is a well established fact in philosophy that induction is not a failsafe mechanism. Yet people induce frequently through their lives and seem to have some sort of belief that their inductions are valid despite that they are logically not so. Why? I say this is where the type-dogma comes in. A personality allows a person to form the necessary dogmatic beliefs to perform inductions. To top things off, the inductions are in fact succesful in more cases than chance would imply. This is due to the type's internal consistency. The type-mechanism is not random, it is constantly being corrected by new observations and maintained by a complex memory system where possible is sharply divided from impossible. We are, of course, talking about internal, dogmatic possibility/impossibility, but these notions correspond to real possibility and impossibility to the extent that the inductive learning mechanism that produced them was properly trained. Despite all this, though, the type-mechanism, like induction, like all things human, is not failsafe. It produces guesses. Good, educated ones at best, but guesses still.

[1981slater]

Process type: "Let's have a beer!"
Result type: "I don't like beer at all"
Process type: "It's not about the beer, it's about socializing and having fun"
Result type: "I don't need to do so, I've fucked my GF two hours ago"
Process type: "You are fired, Mr Boredom!!"

[krieger]

A very simple way of fitting all of cognition into a single principle, is to say that all cognition is ultimately a matter of prediction. Where a primitive organism adapts to the environment by reacting to changes in the environment that previously occurred, a cognition capable organism adapts to changes that will occur in the future. The key mechanism in doing so, is prediction: the inference of future changes from regularities in past ones.

Two main forms of prediction can be isolated:
The first is the kind of prediction where a cognizant being predicts a future experience from past ones. The question asked is: "what will next happen to me". The attitude is one of helplessness, vulnerability, reaction.
The second is the kind of prediction where a cognizant being predicts what it will find when it looks in a certain place or undertakes a certain action. The question asked here is: "what can I do, and what are consequences of doing it." The attitude is one of capability, power, instigation.

The former kind of prediction is linked to the Dynamic types in socionics. The latter to the Static types.

[krieger]

deleted due to change in views

[krieger]

On clubs, quadras and function axes...

Already shown by user Smilingeyes:
T = socially closed, external
S = socially open, external
F = socially open, internal
N = socially closed, internal

(interpretation: external = much contact, much specific information, confrontative behavior; internal = opposite)

NT = maximum of socially closed
ST = maximum of external
SF = maximum of socially open
NF = maximum of internal

What was never revealed in as much detail but still implicit in Smilingeyes' writings:
NT = maximally increasing in external
ST = maximally increasing in socially open
SF = maximally increasing in internal
NF = maximally increasing in socially closed

This should tell you why NTs often appear much, much tougher that STs do. The STs are trying to increase the level of cooperation. The NTs are maximally uncooperative AND pointedly trying to create conditions of toughness and confrontation.

I like to think of the NF club as the club that is social enough to consider offers of cooperation, but due to their increasing social closedness inevitably comes to reject these.

--- this stuff is experimental... concrete and abstract definitely exist but it isn't clear wether the "concrete turns into abstract" interpretation holds water.

[FDG]

Conscientiousness: Affirmed by Serious, Feeling, Resolute and Dynamic.

Why Dynamic?

(my observation is, that the two most coscentious types are ISFJ and ENFJ, so I had personally deduced it was affirmed by feeling, resolute, negativism. Yes they do also match your classification since ENFJ is F-R-D and ISFJ S-F-R, but I thought the core cause was negativism)

[krieger]

deleted due to change in views

[FDG]

That's a very nice explanation, I agree with almost everything. Kudos for your investigations, really.

What I still disagree with, is the importance of positivism and negativism over coscentiousness; it might be a volatile trait, but I do not think this also means weak. Trying to extend the reasoning on the same fashion of your definitions: a person that feels that he is limited by its environment will dedicate more time to the agreed-upon demands placed on them. Negativists are said to more easily drop things rather than take upon them new ones. One consequence of this is that they will tend to be maximally coscentious at the tasks they have choosen to tackle. Given that the structure of this reasoning is similar to the one used by you for dynamic, I would place it at least on par with it in terms of importance.
Of course, we have to be careful to characterize accurately negativism and postivism, so an INTj using accepting Ti would be positivist.

[krieger]

That does make sense. Like I said, Negativism could very well be related. It is just weaker than things like Static/Dynamic (extremely strong), Merry/Serious (extremely strong) and Thinking/Feeling (again, extremely strong). It's got quite something to compete with. (talking about strength apart from context here)

I can spot Static/Dynamic, Merry/Serious and Thinking/Feeling from a distance in a person. Just a few glimpses and I'll know it. Negativism/Positivism, I often don't "see" at all.

Of course, we have to be careful to characterize accurately negativism and postivism, so an INTj using accepting Ti would be positivist.

I disagree. An INTj is always Negativist. To call it something else is to confuse terminology. I do not support smilingeyes' interpretation of function use where an INTj can behave like IxTj when it focusses on the T function.

(what you seem to be getting at is that Accepting Ti is an Empowering function; on a related note, this combination of Merry + Empowering does make Accepting Ti one of the least conscientious functions when looked at in isolation)

[krieger]

On the difference between NT types, with a focus on rational functions.....

Ti and Fe function as an axis. Any sort of thinking that involves Ti, also tacitly involves Fe. Likewise Fi and Te form an axis and operate jointly whenever these are used.

Ti/Fe thinking starts with identifying a need (Fe), which then invites a pragmatic attitude (Ti). The person feels that a certain thing must happen and then sets out to get it done.
Fi/Te thinking starts with identifying a factual condition (Te), which then invites a moral attitude (Fi). The person notices that a certain condition exists and cannot be gotten around, and that the moral thing to do is to take responsive action.

INTj and ENTp have different Ti functions. INTj Ti is Empowering, while ENTp Ti is Limiting. Likewise the Fe functions of the duals of these types are different. The INTj resonds to the Limiting Fe of the ESFj, while the ENTp responds to the Empowering Fe of the ISFp.

Limiting Fe is a very robust kind of need. A need that is easily satisfied. It is not picky.
Empowering Fe is a very delicate kind of need. A need that takes a specific kind of reaction that can not be identified simply by looking at it from one perspective. It demands to be studied indepth so that the right reaction to it found after long deliberation.

The INTj's Empowering Ti responds to the robust needs of Limiting Fe. It is a function of freedom and arbitrarity, as from simply looking at the need the INTj can identify a million of proper reactions.
The ENTp's Limiting Ti responds to the delicate needs of Empowering Fe. This is a faction of restriction. It can not react arbitrarily but it needs to first pay attention to find the one proper reaction. It must study longer to find the answer.

Accepting Ti/Fe concerns a form of Ti pragmatic attitude that seeks to satisfy one Fe need at a time. Any identified need is reacted to at once, since the goal is not to satify multiple ones.
Creating Ti/Fe concerns a form of Ti pragmatic attitude that seeks to satisfy many Fe needs at a time. A single identified need is not enough to invite a reaction. The person witholds judgment until it is in a position to fulfil multiple needs.

Accepting Ti/Fe is all about "just do something good".
Creating Ti/Fe is all about "doing just the right thing".

The remaining part of the difference between INTj and ENTp consists in the difference in their perceiving functions. The attitudes are pretty much inversed when we get to those, as Limiting/Empowering is inversed in the perceiving functions...

If I haven't been clear on this:
Accepting/Creating is a property of function axes, not functions themselves. To use Accepting/Creating as a descriptor of functions is bad use of terminology. Limiting/Empowering are better used here, or best used in conjunction with Accepting/Creating (as in Accepting/Empowering Ti, Creating/Limiting Ne, etc).

[krieger]

The above can be generalized to all Rational and Irrational types:
Rationals are concerned with contribution. They want to "just do something good".
Irrationals are concerned with correction. They want to "do just the right thing".

Limiting Pe is an invention that does many "simply good" things at the time.

[Rick]

Nice work. Actually, the official terms are "accepting/producing", not "creating". But I agree that those terms are not very good. They reflect an earlier perception of the functions that has been downplayed since Augusta, but still holds at least a bit of merit.

[krieger]

When a judging function is used to correct a certain result, there is a difference in how precisely the fault being corrected is identified.

A "thinking" correction mostly involves judgments of the kind: "the whole thing doesn't match X, therefore it is wrong."

A "feeling" correction mostly involves judgments of the kind: "this thing doesn't match X in respect Y, therefore it is wrong in respect Y."

Feeling function distinctions, when used as paths from an imperfect state to a gradually improving one, involve a path with very small intermediate changes.

[krieger]

The Strong Accepting function is usually refered to as the Base function. It is said to be the main source of both a person's strength and his/her most stubborn convictions.

Personally I find it interesting to look at the Dynamic Valued Accepting function for an insight in the person's deepest motivations. Since this function is the same for any two duals, this shows you how it is that duals have such similar outlooks on life, and such similar motivations.

For INTj, for example, this function is Accepting/Limiting Fe: a simple, unpretentious and safe way of judging wether a certain thing that is known in an immediate way (a subjective percept; something one is in direct contact with, not sepparated from; not needing a process of indirect inference to access; also by virtue of being known without inference, flat, face-value information) satisfies one's needs and expectations.

What this amounts to, is that the smallest building blocks of an INTj's thinking, are thoughts along the lines of: "this is good", "this needs to be better in respect X", "no, change it like that", etc.

[krieger]

A common assuption in socionics is that Introverts are the people that are focussed on their inner world, whereas Extroverts are the people that are focussed on the outer world.

Fundamental as this principle is, I feel I should challenge, or at least doubt it. Perhaps it is only part right and needs to be adjusted in the respects in which it isn't.

"Inner world" mostly seems to refer to the Dynamic functions: those things that are known in an immediate way. Flat, face-value information. Images, words, sentences; those things that our view of the world is constructed from.

"Outer world" refers to the Static functions: the things existing behind the screens that can only be understood as constructions built out of the previously mentioned kind of information.

This in mind, it initially seems reasonable to suppose that Statics are concerned with the "outer world", whereas Dynamics are concerned with the "inner world"... But there is more to explore about the issue.

*to be continued*

...

[FDG]

The Strong Accepting function is usually refered to as the Base function. It is said to be the main source of both a person's strength and his/her most stubborn convictions.

Personally I find it interesting to look at the Dynamic Valued Accepting function for an insight in the person's deepest motivations. Since this function is the same for any two duals, this shows you how it is that duals have such similar outlooks on life, and such similar motivations.

Great insight!