It is impossible to describe a function without traits or characteristics

[Hitta]

well, I challenge someone to describe it without a trait or a characteristic. I'm telling you its not possible. This is simple sociology. You can't describe something without language(traits and characteristics). The human mind cannot think without language, everything is connected to language. To describe something you actually have to describe it lol.

[Steve]

well, I challenge someone to describe it without a trait or a characteristic. I'm telling you its not possible. This is simple sociology. You can't describe something without language(traits and characteristics). The human mind cannot think without language, everything is connected to language. To describe something you actually have to describe it lol.

See my above post

[Hitta]

See my above post

Your whole article is nothing but traits. You say that Se=External Object Statics. Isn't that a trait; a description or characteristic of what it is? You are giving 3 traits; that it is external static and object. These are just descriptions. You in no way have shown the true intuitive intentions of Se. You have just described the intentions. Thought in general requires language. You can't think without words or pictures to symbolize something. Functions are no different.

[Steve]

okay my point was that yes there are traits that do have some connections to functions, as long as their used in the right way.

So my point was, why do you keep claiming that people think that you can't connect functions to any traits? I described certain traits in my post, and linked how they could be tied to a function. I don't have a problem with correlating traits to functions, as long as it's done in the right way.

And what exactly are these "intuitive intentions" of Se that you mention?

[Hitta]

okay my point was that yes there are traits that do have some connections to functions, as long as their used in the right way.

So my point was, why do you keep claiming that people think that you can't connect functions to any traits? I described certain traits in my post, and linked how they could be tied to a function. I don't have a problem with correlating traits to functions, as long as it's done in the right way.

And what exactly are these "intuitive intentions" of Se that you mention?

Having a -Se/+Si ego function means that you are going to have a +Ne/-Ni agenda function. -Se/+Si is about going against the balance of force, to makes a rebellious stint. +Ne/-Ni is about originality. Using some deduction one could see that these are connected. If one is rebellious he will have an unconscious need to do things creatively(a deduction). If one is normally into originality and stuff, unconsciously they will have a motive to rebel against things. Its very easy to see, I don't get why people are acting like this is some sort of mathematical explanation uncovered from a UFO that crashed in Roswell.

And btw, I never said that traits couldn't be used to explain functions, thats what I've been arguing. Traits and characteristics are the only way to describe a function. Functions have to be a combination of traits, because everything is traits. Some people prefer originality, some people prefer normalness. Each person has to prefer one at a given time. Come on people, this is the whole essence of being a personality theorist, to understand what a person likes and dislikes. That is what personality is. A person has to value either a +/- version of a function. +Ni is normalness; routine; etc. -Ni is originality; singularity; novelty. Everyone is one of them at a given time.

[iAnnAu]

hitta, you keep saying that humans "can't" think without language.
I strongly disagree. I would say we wouldn't be able to develop our thoughts in most directions without language, but thinking doesn't necessarily begin with language, so how can you believe we *can't* think without language?
It just bothers for me for some reason. When I read S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action years ago, the author at first seemed to express a similar idea, but finally I realized that he was trying to make the point that it takes language to formalize the process of idea leading to further ideas.
Otherwise we are, as you asserted elsewhere, simply machines of reaction, with no free will at all. In which case what's the point of our thoughts anyway?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Hitta]

hitta, you keep saying that humans "can't" think without language.
I strongly disagree. I would say we wouldn't be able to develop our thoughts in most directions without language, but thinking doesn't necessarily begin with language, so how can you believe we *can't* think without language?
It just bothers for me for some reason. When I read S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action years ago, the author at first seemed to express a similar idea, but finally I realized that he was trying to make the point that it takes language to formalize the process of idea leading to further ideas.
Otherwise we are, as you asserted elsewhere, simply machines of reaction, with no free will at all. In which case what's the point of our thoughts anyway?

What kind of thoughts can a person have without symbols or language? Everything we know is a symbol for something. The objects we see are just symbols. You can't think without symbols.

[Steve]

Having a -Se/+Si ego function means that you are going to have a +Ne/-Ni agenda function. -Se/+Si is about going against the balance of force, to makes a rebellious stint. +Ne/-Ni is about originality.

And how did you come up with these definitions?

And btw, I never said that traits couldn't be used to explain functions, thats what I've been arguing.

Are you seriously flipping what I said around? lol. I know that you believe that traits are tied with functions, why do you think I wrote a post saying that you tie traits TOO CLOSELY with functions? What I was addressing in the above post was the idea that YOU CLAIM that OTHER PEOPLE (those who criticize your model) believe that traits can't be associated with functions. And I'm saying that nobody believes that you can't associate traits with functions - people instead disagree with HOW YOU attribute the traits to the functions.

That is what personality is. A person has to value either a +/- version of a function. +Ni is normalness; routine; etc. -Ni is originality; singularity; novelty.

Same question as above, where/how did you come up with these definitions?

[Hitta]

And how did you come up with these definitions?



Are you seriously flipping what I said around? lol. I know that you believe that traits are tied with functions, why do you think I wrote a post saying that you tie traits TOO CLOSELY with functions? What I was addressing in the above post was the idea that YOU CLAIM that OTHER PEOPLE (those who criticize your model) believe that traits can't be associated with functions. And I'm saying that nobody believes that you can't associate traits with functions - people instead disagree with HOW YOU attribute the traits to the functions.



Same question as above, where/how did you come up with these definitions?

The definitions are from Victor Gulenko, the model is from AV Bulakov. Jimmy(the original owner of 16types) went by the same model I go by.

[Hitta]

Business logic P (Te in your classification):
proactive ("+"): savings, economy, careful maintenance
reactive ("-"): expenses, investments, risks, combination, trial of something new

Structural logic L (Ti in your classification):
proactive ("+"): implicative, if-then logic, logic of cause and effect, linear, chain, narrow-directed
reactive ("-"): disjunctive, or-or logic, widespread, volume, holographical

Ethics of emotions E (Fe in your classification):
proactive ("+"): playful emotions, translating of emotional state, entertaining and sound effects
reactive ("-"): organic emotions, motorial and tactile effects, changes in emotional state

Ethics of relations R (Fi in your classification):
proactive ("+"): warm-hearted ethic, homily, moral
reactive ("-"): ethic of distancing, changing of psychological distance

Force sensorics F (Se in your classification):
proactive ("+"): submissiveness, voluntarism, following existing balance of forces, demobilization
reactive ("-"): submissive force, breaking existing balance of forces, concentration, preponderance in forces in some place

Sensation sensorics S (Si in your classification):
proactive ("+"): stabile comfort, habitual sensations
reactive ("-"): thrill, different sensations, change in physical state

Intuition of possibilities I (Ne in your classification):
proactive ("+"): intuition of perspectives, possible findings, synthesis of known ideas
reactive ("-"): intuition of lost alternatives, unnoticed paths, hidden talents

Intuition of time T (Ni in your classification):
proactive ("+"): intuition of reflection, waiting, reproducing of old tendences, past
reactive ("-"): intuition of suddenness, danger, novelty, future

This is directly from Gulenko. You can translate it off of his webpage.

[Logos]

That seems to be of a different beast than the "traits" you attribute to types.

[Steve]

This is directly from Gulenko. You can translate it off of his webpage.

Those definitions don't seem sound to me, and I've always had a problem with referring to Te as "business logic" for example. I mean come on, how many Betas do you see on CNBC analyzing business stuff, or even Deltas for that same matter? Or some ISTj accountant, or even ESFj or INTj or ESTj. - it's something multiple types can do fairly reasonably.

And, I think Gulenko fails to show how these things are actually part of the information elements of socionics. If you want to throw out the information elements, that's fine - but in so doing, you're not talking about socionics anymore. You're creating a theory about something else.

I will take to these definitions Gulenko provides when I can see how they tie to the information elements, AND when I see other traits listed - OTHER than universal traits that pretty much any person could do.

I think a serious problem arises especially when you use these traits in describing inter-type relations, where you start to see HUGE inconsistencies when observing ACTUAL PEOPLE.

Also, I've noticed that when you decide something is a certain way (such as when you were discussing symbols), you seem to be unreceptive to alternative considerations, and so locked into a certain viewpoint that you ignore information that would challenge the notions you've accepted and literally turned into cement - like static to the extreme. So you may want to be aware of that and use Ne a little bit - I know you can - you're a Ti INTj (NOT some INFp as some bizarre claim states) - and just maybe consider HOW alternative information can be worked into your understanding. Then compare the considerations with experiences from reality, and if it doesn't check out - THEN you can dismiss it.

In terms of the symbols thing, I think looking at something for pure visual stimulation isn't a symbol. Minde nailed that point:

When an image or object has meaning it is a symbol. But, if you look at something for what it is, as opposed to what it means, then it's not a symbol, imo. (Which was what my half-a-thought reference to judging/perceiving was about.)

I also think it is important to differentiate between different levels of symbolism. The way I'm perceiving it (correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be under the notion that symbols are ALL simplistic or 1 to 1 or something close to it. I would say that the meaning people attach to visual images can be fairly complex, while something like a number is fairly simple. One means one, not zero, not two, not more or less than one, etc. So that's fairly simple. But most people's thinking isn't this simple. Sure, we use words as symbols to represent ideas, but the way a person processes information is certainly not a 1 to 1 type thing. Check out some info on "holonomic brain theory".

But seriously, chill out with this 1 to 1 stuff - you're creating a limiting and imprisoning conception of human reality.