Gulenko vs Us on the matter of Associativity

[Brilliand]

There are a few other things that might be considered a bit in the realm of the whole Gulenko discussion, and that's that by virtue of his contrasting static versus dynamic characteristics of type we immediately are drawing in a whole hell of a lot more than simply looking at how might be described. Essentially the scope of what we're talking about is so much narrower. It's not enough to simply force the question onto Gulenko's terms.

I'm going to digress a bit and say that I do think that Ne is about picking up something about the objects in your environment. They appear to have this or that quality about them to the perceiver, typically in ways that have a lot less to do with whatever more visible, obvious properties might say. I can also agree that Ti and Fi are what's used to actually codify, delineate, and associate these as similarities (I won't bother with any specifics of how the two are different), in whatever way makes the most amount of consistent sense to the person seeing all these things. That's to say that when Vero talks about Ne as associative in terms of semiotics, particularly when it's in the middle of a discussion on someone's type, that we've gone beyond just talking about some individual function. We're talking about a person's ego block. We're talking about the associations we see being made, and we may be noticing that these are primarily revolving around the sort of qualities Ne is able to 'see'. I don't think many people would look at the above and find it to be all too strange a way of a description or very weird at all to consider as a line of reasoning in support of ILE.

Whew, this is harder to write than I thought! Back to Gulenko though. My point in bringing up the way he differentiates static and dynamic is that we have intra-static and intra-dynamic ways of comparing what falls into each category. In static, we've got Ne vs Se, Ti vs Fi, then the four combos where they're combined (more important as we're talking about types of people, not just the definition of some lone theoretical term). We're capturing more here than we need. Vice versa on the other side we are comparing it to. If we're just trying to select between one element of each group (ILE or SEI), we seem to be widening the discussion without much of a need to. This sounds like I'm more or less dismissing the point you're making about the former being analytic or fragmenting and the latter tending more towards associative/synthetic thinking, but I guess to me it seems like there isn't a contradiction between what you've quoted from Vero and from Gulenko, except as a linguistic or contextual difference. The description I gave up there *points* seems to me that you consistently view the world in a fragmentary way (looking at each object's qualities) and analytically (how to put them in agreement/disagreement with other object qualities) and as a result still being immensely 'associative' (tossing some object into the framework machine and it spitting out a lot of things most people wouldn't immediately comprehend unless they saw a comparable quality, worked under a similar framework, etc).

Phew, there's a lot of fluff here! But in response:

• is Static. It is never Dynamic.
• Every element takes in information and brings results that some other element wouldn't get from the same information.
• Therefore, this is not an argument for Gulanzon being :Ne ego.
• Taking a cursory glance at Semiotics, it seems extremely ...

EDIT: One of my bullet points needed some cleanup:

In a dynamic association, the connection is simply "is associated with." This is as opposed to a static association, where the connection may be "part of" or "results from" or some such thing.

Correction:

Every Xi element has its own type of connection. Ti has its vast hierarachy of logical bonds... part-of, is-a, greater-than, is-as-is-to, negation-of (OK, it's probably vast because that's my base)... Fi has its liked-by, appropriate-for and better-than... Si its smells-like, looks-like and sounds-like; and Ni has its goes-with, leads-to and theme-of.

I may have everything but Ti a little off, but I didn't want to leave such a strong Static bias in place.

[munenori2]

Nice post, mune!

Phew, there's a lot of fluff here! But in response:

• is Static. It is never Dynamic.
• Every element takes in information and brings results that some other element wouldn't get from the same information.
• Therefore, this is not an argument for Gulanzon being :Ne ego.
• Taking a cursory glance at Semiotics, it seems extremely ...

I agree with 1 and 4, but I don't see how 1 and 2 lead to 3, assuming those are premises and a conclusion?

[Brilliand]

I agree with 1 and 4, but I don't see how 1 and 2 lead to 3, assuming those are premises and a conclusion?

Actually, 2 by itself leads to 3. That was in response to your last sentence.

You gave another description to avoid "associative" meaning the same thing for Ne as for Algorithmic, but I think your new description can apply to any mental process - not only Ne by any means.

[munenori2]

Actually, 2 by itself leads to 3. That was in response to your last sentence.

You gave another description to avoid "associative" meaning the same thing for Ne as for Algorithmic, but I think your new description can apply to any mental process - not only Ne by any means.

Idk, man. I mean my point was to bring together what Vero said and what Gulenko said and, looking at the two, realize that they aren't so contradictory exactly because the meaning of associative being used by each was different in the first place.

I'm also not sure it can be used for any mental process equally well. Definitely see how it fits in the case of the statics (as it was meant to try to fit both Se and Ne with Ti or Fi) since that was what I had in mind. I'd have to think about the dynamics and see if it plays in my head just as good. I just don't feel like the way it happens is as discrete as what was said about statics. I guess I don't see what's wrong with there being a way in which statics associate things and the way dynamics do it under the associative heading gulenko's got.

Would it be cool if they had different names? Yeah! But the point I was making is how they are different kinds of associations altogether, that gulenko's 'associative' description was in all odds not what was being referenced in the first place or meant to 'switch off' whatever he's got for....whatever it is he's got. I admit I'm pretty ignorant of what he would say ILEs or Ne leading or Ne egos or whatever should think like, much less SEIs.

It just seems obvious to me that if you take the apparent contradiction that appears to be presented in the OP, you can see how it needn't necessarily be that. I mean, lol, it's painted like the two come flying at each other from opposite sides of the room where only one can be left standing, when in reality they could totally meet in the middle and be all, "Oh hey, I get how we're not doomed to do the highlander deal. Let's go get some coffee, etc etc etc". Instead of fighting tooth and claw, a coffee friendship is born!

[Brilliand]

Idk, man. I mean my point was to bring together what Vero said and what Gulenko said and, looking at the two, realize that they aren't so contradictory exactly because the meaning of associative being used by each was different in the first place.

I'm also not sure it can be used for any mental process equally well. Definitely see how it fits in the case of the statics (as it was meant to try to fit both Se and Ne with Ti or Fi) since that was what I had in mind. I'd have to think about the dynamics and see if it plays in my head just as good. I just don't feel like the way it happens is as discrete as what was said about statics. I guess I don't see what's wrong with there being a way in which statics associate things and the way dynamics do it under the associative heading gulenko's got.

Would it be cool if they had different names? Yeah! But the point I was making is how they are different kinds of associations altogether, that gulenko's 'associative' description was in all odds not what was being referenced in the first place or meant to 'switch off' whatever he's got for....whatever it is he's got. I admit I'm pretty ignorant of what he would say ILEs or Ne leading or Ne egos or whatever should think like, much less SEIs.

It just seems obvious to me that if you take the apparent contradiction that appears to be presented in the OP, you can see how it needn't necessarily be that. I mean, lol, it's painted like the two come flying at each other from opposite sides of the room where only one can be left standing, when in reality they could totally meet in the middle and be all, "Oh hey, I get how we're not doomed to do the highlander deal. Let's go get some coffee, etc etc etc". Instead of fighting tooth and claw, a coffee friendship is born!

OK, I can agree with this.