They are of a far more abstract nature. They concern representations of things that we are never in direct contact with. Immanuel Kant called this the "noumenon": the world as it is independent of observation. It is only natural that experience itself can not convey such a world.
Hmm, so Se would be far more abstract than Ni?
The end is nigh
External/Internal also affects the degree to which a function is "abstract", probably moreso than Static/Dynamic. But Si is definitely easier for me to visualize than Se. Si is just a subjective snapshot of something. To get a stable image of what Se is, you need to put a lot of subjective content together. Se is composite when pinpointed like that.
Yeah. Labcoat, you understand socionics very well. Please continue teaching others. (I'm not being sarcastic, this was very good)External/Internal also affects the degree to which a function is "abstract", probably moreso than Static/Dynamic. But Si is definitely easier for me to visualize than Se. Si is just a subjective snapshot of something. To get a stable image of what Se is, you need to put a lot of subjective content together. Se is composite when pinpointed like that.
Originally Posted by Joy
I agree with that, especially the composite part, but I'd rather say that Si isn't so much "subjective snapshot of something" as impression it creates - not how it is, but how it affects the person. Not trying to limit it to physical world, but an easy example would be Si saying a couch is "comfortable" and Se that it's "soft". As in, Si focusing on the experience itself more than on what created it. I don't know if this is what you mean by "subjective" in this case, but that's how I see it - Si focusing on the subjective part of it and Se aiming to eliminate it, all the while both are still subject to subjectivity resulting from subject's limited perception.
Do you have any thoughts about abstract/involved you'd care to share? It's a dichotomy I don't really see nor could I find any description of it. I suspect it may be related to being a democratic type - it's easier to understand what relates to ego functions, and they either have both abstract or involved.
I've got a major beef with this thread. Seems like people in it are chicken. Just porking around...
I won't kow-tow to you, no sir. It ill-behooves you to make such poultry attempts at puns. They're nothing short of fowl. Leave the flight of wordplay to those with talons, bird-brain; the cocky ones who can wing it, right? Cuz if you don't... there's no snout you'll just embarrass yourself and look like a pig.
Something's kinda fishy about this thread.............
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Purveying piscine puns for the halibut can only leave you floundering for a perch.
Ok, I'm finished.
what were your thoughts on: Aspectonics: 'the involvement'<----------->the abstract - Socionix
I'm gonna guess its the fact that less than one out of a dozen of its readers lack the mental acumen to properly pick up on its subject material. The easiest way to detect such a thing in any thread is to look for comments along the lines of "its all a matter of perspective", "you have your view and I have mine now lets call it quits" and "X just doesn't obey the lols of physics".Something's kinda fishy about this thread.............
I was under the impression that Si functions as a composition of sensory memories, rather than Se, which induces a reaction to immediate sensory stimulation.
Si, being introverted, continually relates sensory information with "Psychic archetypes". These archetypes are formed from experiencing different objects over time and grouping them based on similarity of their sensible qualities.
Thus Si confers a higher value on the archetypes (The Subjects), than on the object itself.
Similarity of object to past objects experienced
---------------------------------------------
What the object suggests for its immediate context
(Btw, I would like to know how your theory differs from my own, so that I may better understand yours)
The end is nigh
Which function would you associate with the phrase "constructing a representation of an object"?
(I associate it with Creative Extrovert Static Perception; aka Ijs' Creative functions)
I think a problem with your view is that it explains both function in terms of sense experience, such that the object itself has no place in the model. And if Se is itself about "the object", then there is the problem of how an object is never automatically "given" to the observer. It only influences the observer by transmitting images and sounds of itself.
That sounds an awful lot like MBTI Si and Se. I've yet to see Si associated with memory in socionics, but it's obligatory on the other side. Although it could be somehow closer to original Jung's ideas, I'd have to re-read it in this light.I was under the impression that Si functions as a composition of sensory memories, rather than Se, which induces a reaction to immediate sensory stimulation.
Si, being introverted, continually relates sensory information with "Psychic archetypes". These archetypes are formed from experiencing different objects over time and grouping them based on similarity of their sensible qualities.
Thus Si confers a higher value on the archetypes (The Subjects), than on the object itself.
---------------------------------------------
(Btw, I would like to know how your theory differs from my own, so that I may better understand yours)
Hmm, I would associate it with Introverted rationality, particulary Ti (perhaps only because construction and representation implies a regulated thought process moreso than an emotional or obligatory one). A representation makes use of comparison, which would be the domain of the rational functions (When you break a perception apart and translate the information into symbols, you're using a rational function. The symbols are not what you experienced by perception alone; you have to compare information aka make a ratio). Maybe comparison is not an apt word... the irrational functions do not define criteria beforehand, like the rationals.
Extraversion confers a higher value on what the object suggests, than on what is suspected by the subject. Therefore, extraverts adapt their subjective views, expectations, etc to activity occurring in their environment. Introverts attempt to adapt the meaning of the object to the subjective experience, ie to relate objects to their accumulated "psychic archetypes".I think a problem with your view is that it explains both function in terms of sense experience, such that the object itself has no place in the model. And if Se is itself about "the object", then there is the problem of how an object is never automatically "given" to the observer. It only influences the observer by transmitting images and sounds of itself.
Another way to put this would be that extraverted functions navigate by relating information to external reference points (outside the experience of the self), whereas introverted functions relate information to an internal reference point (The experience of the self).
The end is nigh
It's really not an issue of people having mental capacity - more like they don't feel like reading your mammoth post of new premises and subjective terms when they can just think about things themselves and understand them perfectly fine.
Introverted Sensation (Irrational and Dynamic)
Subjective Sensory Perception changes
"Perception of the changes in accumulated sensory experience"
I do associate introverted irrationality with memory.
The end is nigh
Well I associate it with the Rational temperaments (primarily IJ), so we agree at least on something. In Rational types, raw sensory experience has to be related to an existing mental representation of the world for it to make sense to the person. This is how their Pi functions are "diffuse" (my new term for "Empowering") as in "too chaotic to really make sense of". Of course Ejs still like to juggle with that kind of chaotic information. Us IJs just go "how do I figure this out?".Hmm, I would associate it with Introverted rationality, particulary Ti (perhaps only because construction and representation implies a regulated thought process moreso than an emotional or obligatory one). A representation makes use of comparison, which would be the domain of the rational functions (When you break a perception apart and translate the information into symbols, you're using a rational function. The symbols are not what you experienced by perception alone; you have to compare information aka make a ratio). Maybe comparison is not an apt word... the irrational functions do not define criteria beforehand, like the rationals.
Extraversion confers a higher value on what the object suggests, than on what is suspected by the subject. Therefore, extraverts adapt their subjective views, expectations, etc to activity occurring in their environment. Introverts attempt to adapt the meaning of the object to the subjective experience, ie to relate objects to their accumulated "psychic archetypes".
Ok, so Extroverts do put the emphasis of certainty on "activity occurring in their environment" and "external reference points"? It seems to me that this is different from your earlier description of "reaction to immediate sensory stimulation", because sense experience is something private and only subjectively available.Another way to put this would be that extraverted functions navigate by relating information to external reference points (outside the experience of the self), whereas introverted functions relate information to an internal reference point (The experience of the self).
On a related note, my own definitions define extroversion as "focal ego Rational function", a definition that I prefer because Accepting Object combines a function axis (Accepting) with a property of a single function (Object), which skews the model in an unnatural way. I can't really defend this in a non subjective way, though.
I don't mean to be sarcastic but if you have beef make a burger lol
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote