Because they can't be derived from the Reinin dichotomies, unless I'm missing something important about the binary nature of Reinin addition.
Where do temperaments come from?
Because they can't be derived from the Reinin dichotomies, unless I'm missing something important about the binary nature of Reinin addition.
Doesn't the whole Reinin analysis thing start out with 4 fundamental dichotomies or something? Where do those come from and why are they more suitable as a fundament than a group of dichotomies with two temperament (out of J/P, Static/Dynamic and introvert/extrovert) dichotomies within it?
you only have to consider Ip and Ej closely related and Ep / Ij closely related. So there is a semantics problem with the temperaments, but nothing too important
They (Static/Dynamic, J/P, introvert/extrovert) are either fundament dichotomies, or they are derivable. I think jxtres is making an oversight.
I'm not talking about which assumptions are more correct. What I meant is that, as far as I recall each reinin dichotomy is a finite field with characteristic 2. In a finite field with characteristic 2, the operations of addition and subtraction are identical.Originally Posted by labcoat
link
Thus:
Static = IJ or EP
(IJ or EP) + J = (IJ + J) or (EP + J)
IJ + J = I + (J + J) = I + (J - J) = I
Another way to say it: I + (J xor J) = I + null = I
So it's impossible to derive IJ temperament by adding IJ + J. Is there another way of deriving them?
think about a fork in the road, where one path is right and the other is left. down both paths there is another fork, right and left. there is no real similarity between turning left after turning left, and turning left after turning right, it just sounds like there is. it is the same thing with temperaments.. language problem.
Introvert <AND> Judging. The and operator is left out of the account because it's usage is too obvious. If you have two properties, it goes without saying you also have the property of having both.So it's impossible to derive IJ temperament by adding IJ + J. Is there another way of deriving them?
I and J together is supposed to give you static, not "IJ temperament." There is no Reinin dichotomy called "IJ temperament." You have to go outside the math to generate it.
Teehee.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Temperaments aren't dichotomies. That is why you can't find any way in which they are related to or produced by the Reinin model.I and J together is supposed to give you static, not "IJ temperament." There is no Reinin dichotomy called "IJ temperament." You have to go outside the math to generate it.
Thanks all I wanted to know.
Temperament - Wikisocion
Attempts have been made to describe the socionic types in terms of temperament. First, some socionists after Augusta correlated the four classical temperaments (melancholic, choleric, sanguine, and phlegmatic) with types, however, these attempts have not been widely accepted. The most well-known temperament system was introduced by Viktor Gulenko and puts the 16 types into four groups that share the same two traits of the extroversion / introversion and irrational / rational dichotomies. The same four intertype relations exist between the types of any temperament: identity, business, super-ego, and kindred. In Russian the temperament names consist of two adjectives that describe common characteristics of these types, while in English a different notation has been used:
* EP temperament (Flexible-maneuvering)
* EJ temperament (Linear-insistent)
* IP temperament (Receptive-adaptive)
* IJ temperament (Balanced-stable)
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
Removed at User Request
It exists in the capacity of being that which determines whether the perceiving ego function is base or creative (and vice versa for the judging ego function). You acknowledge all these terms so I don't see why you have to go into this childish defiance act and say it doesn't exist anyway.j/p in reality doesn't exist
Removed at User Request
the temperaments come from the functions and elements. Chicken and egg.
i agree with pinnochio your endless Ti definition loops are retarted.Is that what intjs do?
playing pandemic 2 the other day made me think of our temperaments as giant immune systems of our cells and how we interact with the world.
They are interchangeable names for the same phenomenom. What could possibly be your point?Rational/Irrational (still not perfect, but better) than Judging/Perceiving
Process/Result is not justified by Rational/Irrational alone, but by it's combination with Positivist/Negativist and Valued/Unvalued (or Strong/Weak).I noticed that you and tuturututu build an entire doctrine based on several pure conventions, including this j/p, which leaded you to wrong conclusions, one of them being the justification of Process/Result which has no justification in reality, afaik. Process/Result is wrong, it is not applicable to the types as it claims to apply - you told me once about the difference between how you see it and the existing descriptions but I could not find those traits by observations for now.
In the INTjs and ENTps' case, Result and Process respectively denote how the former is in a state of readiness, whereas the latter is mentally occupied by a distraction (or strongly inclined towards becoming so). I have yet to come across a pair of INTjs and ENTps in which this obvious difference doesn't manifest in a clear way.
Removed at User Request
Temperaments come from the leading function.
EG, an Ne dominant, Jung describes this type as extraverted, and also irrational, hence he talks about EP, which means extraverted and irrational.
It's justified by what I observe. That you can't see it is not my problem. If you want to use this kind of argument to justify calling "Ne" more real than +/-, you're going to have to appeal to the fact that the first has majority support and the latter doesn't. But you say that kind of thinking is opposed to your values... You can either keep calling everything new that is introduced "not real" or get your head out of the sand and try to work with it.You justify it with another unjustified "dichotomy"? Positivist/Negativist doesn't exist itself. What I was telling you is that it's not justified by observation - real people. Simply, it doesn't exist.
LSI are stereotypically known for being continually occupied with practical work with only very small periods of inaction in between of such "projects". That's a form of occupation, not readiness. SLE on the other hand have a typical way of positioning themselves calmly among events and making very efficient practical movements from that calm state. That's the readiness of Result again.Isn't the exact same difference between LII and ILE applicable between LSI and SLE?
Watch some of Rutger Hauer (ESTp) and Clancy Brown (ESTp) for examples of this calmness:
Maybe you just feel like quibbling over the semantics? It's the only way I can understand you saying j/p doesn't exist then saying rational/irrational exists, and if that's the case, you aren't 'just keeping things simple' in the manner of your presentation at all, as i'm unclear as to what you're own about and if you really have a point at all.
Ah, you are saying that because of the second function someone can be rational and irrational? Then you don't understand what the whole rationality business entails, it entails the leading function, and the leading function affects peoples overall expression - (which is also what you look for when typing people off dichotomies or functions).as base or Creative, j/p in reality doesn't exist)
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Whether it is "official" or not, j/p is being used as a synonym for rational/irrational and is different from MBTI J/P.
Move on?
Removed at User Request
They're also Introvert and Serious, both of which have connotations of negative behavior. In the big picture there is nothing wrong with saying there is also something small that is positive about them, but fails to offer an equal counterweight to the other two properties.what I remember now is that the SLIs I "measured" were Negativist.
I am not in any way influenced by the fact that Reinin wrote about these dichotomies. It does interest me that there have been other people that reported "seeing" these dichotomies and this was a reason for me to try working with them. In using them, I keep track of how their influence relates to what is already established under the orthodox system of terms.It is not important whether something is written down by Reinin, but if it exists out there, Reinin bogus dichotomies are caused by this redundancy, adding j/p as a fundamental element for the combination, where we in Socionics know that it was already partially included in T/F vs N/S separation, Rational function separated from the Irrational ones!
I don't think you have any indication that Stalin wasn't in his most common state "occupied".You're rambling, again for your purpose. The stereotype of LSI is policeman or guard, then Stalin: readiness is their way of life, probably the most ready of all. Busted.
On a related note, you type me as ISTj, so your view of ISTjs is busted.
Conventionalism is to stick to what is agreed upon. In finding improvements on the model I move towards breaking free from that kind of thing, so maybe you should take your own advice on that topic.Bottom line, I'm advising you friendly, open your eyes, both you and tutu became strayed by your conventionalism, to make things work on paper but loose any connection with reality. I'm actually doing this for a long time, just I have not always arguments to prove you wrong, mainly because I don't use to think of something I have no reason to think about.
About +/-: this dichotomy of functions is given rise to by the theory on quadra succession (Alpha tends to the products of Beta, Gamma works with Beta's output, Delta improves on Gamma's results, etc).
Under this paradigm, - simply means "to the left in the sequence", whereas + means "to the right in the sequence". (hope I got this right; I mix them up sometimes)
If +/- is real, then any other property of functions gives rise to a Reinin dichotomy that signifies the property's distribution over + and -. These are the "small cycle Reinin dichotomies":
Negative/Positive: distribution of Limiting/Empowering over + and -
Taciturn/Narrator: distribution of Object/Field over + and -
Aristocrat/Democrat: distribution of Rational Function/Irrational Function over + and -
Process/Result: distribution of Base/Creative over + and - (I usually refer to Base/Creative as Accepting/Creating)
Without +/- there is very little reason to think any of these dichotomies are special (as in, any better than a random grouping of unrelated types). Hence why the dichotomies and +/- are very strongly related.
Last edited by krieger; 05-12-2010 at 09:02 PM.
I'd like to know what you'd type my brother as. He has pretty much all of the typical qualifiers of a Ti IJ type, but he is certainly not characterized by "readiness". He has an overwhelming tendency to turn things into obsessions that would be trivialties to most others. This is what keeps him continually occupied with jobs in the way I describe an ISTj above. It's what I've come to expect in ISTjs.You're rambling, again for your purpose. The stereotype of LSI is policeman or guard, then Stalin: readiness is their way of life, probably the most ready of all. Busted.
This may be because I don't know much about Model B at this point, but it seems redundant to me. Saying +Ni is equivalent toblock, for example, whereas -Ni means
block, etc. To make it more general, in NT and SF blocks (elements internal/external) irrational element is +, in NF and ST (internal/internal and external/external) it's -. Do we know if there's more difference between - and + than just grouping with an element of the same or different internality/externality?
I realize there might be a theoretical justification, but does it go beyond the concept of blocks?
Removed at User Request
It is redundant in every way, except in that it so nicely fits the quadra succession paradigm: + is what you "receive" from the previous quadra in the chain, whereas - is what you pass on to the next quadra in the chain.This may be because I don't know much about Model B at this point, but it seems redundant to me. Saying +Ni is equivalent to
I realize there might be a theoretical justification, but does it go beyond the concept of blocks?
I don't really see how anything else of what you say here is problematic.
Removed at User Request
The point is that you can make the rest of the dichotomies work under a function paradigm by introducing certain other notions to the function model: +/-, Limiting/Empowering, Valued/Unvalued (if you hadn't already) and Strong/Weak.This is a conclusion of exactly what you said: we use j/p only to define the position of the Rational/Irrational functions, changing each of them (N for S, T for F - what's called "Internal/External") makes no difference in j/p.
You need to move beyond this rigid conception of functions where the possibility that there might be some property you haven't identified yet is excluded off hand.
Please, they talk about it extensively. They describe quadras in terms of seasons and life stages. They explain historical events in terms of it. I'm not going to look up the sources for you.Wtf is "quadra succession"? I assume it is an artificial construct based on the +/- dichotomy. Afaik it is neither acknowledged by most socionists, not observable for real.
I know how Jung would have answered this question.
Just spewing some "insights" here.
Let us say that when a bell is rung is I, and when the dog starts to salivate is a J. Now it is obvious; If I then most likely J. I=>P, highly unlikely. P is to be paired with E almost exclusively.(especially if I/E is first in the sequence, come to think of it-this all sequence thing might be very important) There you go: IJ/EP statics for you.The brain is principally composed of a very large number (circa 10,000,000,000) of neurons, massively interconnected (with an average of several thousand interconnects per neuron, although this varies enormously). Each neuron is a specialized cell which can propagate an electrochemical signal. The neuron has a branching input structure (the dendrites), a cell body, and a branching output structure (the axon). The axons of one cell connect to the dendrites of another via a synapse. When a neuron is activated, it fires an electrochemical signal along the axon. This signal crosses the synapses to other neurons, which may in turn fire. A neuron fires only if the total signal received at the cell body from the dendrites exceeds a certain level (the firing threshold).
The strength of the signal received by a neuron (and therefore its chances of firing) critically depends on the efficacy of the synapses. Each synapse actually contains a gap, with neurotransmitter chemicals poised to transmit a signal across the gap. One of the most influential researchers into neurological systems (Donald Hebb) postulated that learning consisted principally in altering the "strength" of synaptic connections. For example, in the classic Pavlovian conditioning experiment, where a bell is rung just before dinner is delivered to a dog, the dog rapidly learns to associate the ringing of a bell with the eating of food. The synaptic connections between the appropriate part of the auditory cortex and the salivation glands are strengthened, so that when the auditory cortex is stimulated by the sound of the bell the dog starts to salivate. Recent research in cognitive science, in particular in the area of nonconscious information processing, have further demonstrated the enormous capacity of the human mind to infer ("learn") simple input-output covariations from extremely complex stimuli (e.g., see Lewicki, Hill, and Czyzewska, 1992).
This is Reinin related, indeed. Might even be very important??
Dunno, maybe.
Or something like that. There you go Alpha NTeerds. Try to make something out of this.
Removed at User Request
Most people use both I/E and J/P to describe functions with. The burden of proof is on you when you say only one of these is real.I don't deny this, but the fact you guys appear to claim that:
- using j/p is the same thing as not using it - and of course, we're not talking about naming;
I don't claim such a thing. Like I said, there need to be introductions to the model for some of the Reinin dichotomies to be made to work.- those are conclusions deductible from the Model A itself, that it's all what we need for finding them.
Empirical evidence is generally scarce in socionics. Just that they are difficult to prove the existence of doesn't mean they aren't there. If there was evidence, Reinin would already be part of canon socionics, so what you say here is rather trivial.Remember that Reinin thought that he concluded this exclusively from the available Socionics information (believing that XXXx <=> Model), he didn't find these traits outside, but made these combinations then tried to look for similarities in types. This is why this is so disputed, simply that these supposed similarities/traits are not to be found in real people - there is no empirical evidence for them.
This means you have only eliminated one way in which the dichotomy could be interpreted. Time to move on to another.My personal experience is similar, while I could see the correct dichotomies in real life - they jumped out in my face, actually - the others I could simply not find to be real, hence that Negativist example. And no, I was not looking for signs of "negativity" as in the general meaning, I specified you that I used the descriptions and the most careful I was in how they express quantities, remainders, and so on.
One thing I recommend is not to use Positivist/Negativist and Process/Result in isolation, but to combine them to form quasi-temperaments; this helps to specify the characteristics more narrowly so that they are more fleshed out:
Positivist/Process/Static: "eureka" style of thinking; optimism in the belief that you can solve a problem
Negativst/Process/Dynamic: problem dwelling; trying your best to understand a problem
Positive/Result/Dynamic: oppurtunity based thinking; switching very quickly between promising ventures
Negativst/Result/Static: rejecting things you find that don't fit in with what you have
Well that's how I feel about your way of framing things. Maybe you should explain it again sometime.Whether these new dichotomies are there, I don't know, I couldn't find them so far and some I already dismissed experimentally. Don't get me wrong, I don't deny all, for some simply I could not find whether they are true or false, it would be a pity to dismiss them just like that. My only conviction is that this system build around j/p out of the void is wrong and it doesn't explain them. Some people call this "mental masturbation", it's good as an intellectual exercise and that's all, if you ask me, I am personally interested to find the things which are for real.
Removed at User Request
Uhm, because Static/Dynamic is necessitated when you put two of those terms together? There is no such thing as a Negative/Result/Dynamic type. You'd have to rewrite the entire system to make that happen.labcoat: why did you put Static/Dynamic, to put people in check? Check is not checkmate.
If I had to call two of the dichotomies "fundamental" and the other "derived", Negativist/Positivist would easily be the derived one. It's the most superficial of the three.
Descriptions can be wrong so focussing on them can be misleading. I just look for real life people that I've typed using other methods.Then why didn't you exemplify with types, as long as you know those ways of thinking are to be found among them? Did you actually verify these in real types, at least in the descriptions, or something?
Justification is a difficult topic in socionics regardless of how you approach things. I don't have a quick and easy way to show you how all this manifests, no. I can only point you in a general direction. One good thing to focus on is the way ESFps are volatile and difficult to contain, whereas ESTps are relatively controlled.Your explanations above have no concrete justifications, can you explain and give some examples? One is unable to even discuss about this because it's pure speculation, so far, there's no such think in common among the types in the same group of those, is it? Can you demonstrate these things, or are you waiting for me to "take the burden" to prove something else?
Because people always pick the low hanging fruit first, duh.Without empirical evidence we could not type. Why are the dichotomies existent in the classical model so easily observable and exactly these are not? I don't think it's a coincidence.
I can go without proof for quite a while. All I need is a few indications to work with this stuff. I think you're pretending to care about proof more than you really do. Most of what you write here doesn't have a empirical basis any more than my writing here does."Doesn't mean they aren't there" - but it also doesn't mean they are there, are you again waiting for someone to prove wrong something you failed to prove right in the first place? Until you or someone else will do that they simply don't exist, there's nothing else to do for the skeptics.
Those dialogues are about a very flimsy set of dichotomies that I only barely acknowledge myself. On top of this, the messages were written on the fly and not verified or corrected. I'm not in any way surprised if you don't recognize what's in them.I was always ready to acknowledge those, I even tried to read your dialogues and that socionics 2.0 but couldn't validate anything in my head, they're abstract conventions based on conventions based on other conventions and so on, there was no palpable external thing one could validate with, neither in the functions, descriptions or people :|.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
