post images here of your implicit field dynamics...
post images here of your implicit field dynamics...
"Implicit Field Dynamics" takes this image:
And from it, derives this image:
"Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics""plus-Si" = "deduced doings in or of the conditions"
"minus-Si" = "deduced undoings in or of the conditions""change in temperature, 'effect on conditions', 'how conditions will change', 'what developments will occur'"
How?
That's just how I put it all together; I have no idea how any of this relates to the actual physical structures that perceive and process information.
Think of it more as an automatic and mechanical process performed by the physical brain. Think "neuroscience".
Whatev. It's not like Model A or intertype relations would crumble if I said otherwise.
Furthermore, the idea that ST = all explicit and NF = all implicit seems kinda "shallow" to me, like it relies too much on "folk wisdom" about the nature of intuition. There is nothing "special" or "powerful" about intuition; it is just another way of looking at the world.
All in all, I think my definitions are better because they explain extroversion and introversion.
EDIT:
It's not really inconsistent with Model A. SLI in Model A is still Si+Te, I just think that Xi = implicit and Xe = explicit. So the disagreement is with Aushra's definitions, not with Model A.
Objective Elements are not colored by personal interpretation they are just blocked with a Subjective one which would take the lead in form of Introversion which makes it hard to understand only one Element and therefore any other patterns that come with it.
I guess it's just another dichotomy for them.
This is the kind of "folk wisdom" I was referring to. Why must intuition be abstract?
Perhaps for Fi, but I don't think Fe can be implicit. Fe-people are all about behaviors, which I'm pretty sure are explicit.
That sounds like Ti. Se+Ti, to be specific. Ne+Ti would be like "how fixed states of affairs may suggest something else at large". Ne+Fi would be like "how fixed states of affairs may suggest something about the objects involved".
Te is just "what objects do", or "what objects are doing", or "what objects have done". Explicit, explicit, explicit.
Here is my definition for Ne:
"Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics"Seems to line up. Here's Ni:"state of temperature, 'things together', 'full scene', 'whole impression', 'obvious structure', 'these go together'"
"Ni" = "Implicit Object Dynamics"This also seems to line up, since an Ni-user "just knows" the unseen doings of an object."'you're thinking this way', what an object will do, what an unseen object does, 'you're doing this because of that'"
I think behaviors and abilities are the result of a "unified set" of cognitive functions. I definitely think "reading minds" is Ni-related, but I also think it has in part to do with Fi, at least in the case of EIE. Fi grants the user a static picture of a person; Ni allows the user to pick up on the "implicit" (in this case, "internal" might be the better word to use) dynamic properties of "individuals" (objects), and the "internal dynamic properties of individuals" could include thoughts or feelings. Here is how I visually represent EIE, along with IEE for reference:
Strength Valued Unvalued4 Fe Ne
3 Ni Fi
2 Se Te
1 Ti Si(This is why quasi-identicals are sympathetic toward one another, why they understand each other's points of view so well)4 Ne Fe
3 Fi Ni
2 Te Se
1 Si Ti
I don't like the connotation of "vagueness" that "impression" carries. I'm usually right when I say "these go together". Furthermore, any vagueness on my part could be because I am Ne+Fi; Ne+Ti would likely be more precise.
If "impression" means "appears to be", then couldn't any type experience "impressions"?
idk, it's a possibility
Ne+Fi would definitely say stuff like that.
I could see it. If I recall correctly, Delta NFs and Alpha NTs are "researchers" or whatever.
Both Se and Ne are concerned with "explicit" and "static" properties, but Se only sees individual objects; Ne sees objects not as individual objects, but as belonging to sets. Se finds properties of individual objects; Ne finds properties of sets. It's hard to say which is more beneficial, though.
"Social adeptness" is a function of an individual's particular type and the "type mix" of their social environment. Alpha NTs are Fe-valuing, and where I'm from, Fe seems to reign supreme.
Right, but Model A does not depend on Aushra's definitions.
Here:
So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes". Hence "extroversion" and "introversion".
Doesn't everyone want to be happy? Isn't that what you mean by "internally consistent feeling state"?
Here is the definition for "implicit":
: understood though not clearly or directly stated: not affected by doubt
I'll demonstrate how this is possible for SLI. Here are the definitions:
"Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics""change in temperature, 'effect on conditions', 'how conditions will change', 'what developments will occur'""Te" = "Explicit Object Dynamics"So SLI sees "what objects are doing" and from there he deduces "how conditions will change"."what this does, what that does, 'I am doing this', 'I will do this', 'why don't you do this', 'it won't do this', 'because this does that', 'I wouldn't do that', 'it did this'"
There could be a correlation but idk. Not gonna lie though, reading this made me chuckle because it is so true of me
You're free to think that. And you're welcome
Perhaps I am an IEE of the "Harmonizing" subtype:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._DCNH_Subtypes
My SEI friend when she looks at her dog posts these pics on FB; she adopted this dog when she held him he's obviously not the most gorgeous dog aesthetically but he felt warm in my friends hands and the more she touched him the more the direct image of her dog disappeared and what became loved by her is the image of the dog that reproduced in her mind. The soft and warm hearted Simon, her dog
"Got he teeth cleaned, blood-drawn, vaccines given and is starting a new diet... It's been a rough day for Simon"
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Apparently I disagree with myself. I might remove "general impression", but idk. I think this is what I was doing when I came up with those phrases:
In this way, by mentally superimposing multiple projections of the same object, Holographists reach a holistic view.
True, but if they are surrounded by sympathetic types then their impact will be significantly lessened, possibly to the point of nonexistence.
I think Delta STs are the most "natural" types. Here's Meged and Ovcharov on Si-ISTp:
An original personality with a strong personality, but because of modesty and indecision often remains in the shadows.
This is a very interesting observation, Ath. I've often wondered how ethical functions have anything to do with people.
Insofar as "solipsistic" means "self-absorption, an unawareness of the views or needs of others", then possibly, seeing as "implicit" functions are "introverted" functions.
I disagree with this statement:
I don't think that's true at all. "Happiness" is "doing whatever brings satisfaction".But the researchers, who looked at a large sample of people over a month-long period, found that happiness is associated with selfish “taking” behavior and that having a sense of meaning in life is associated with selfless “giving” behavior
That's pretty much it! Aushra defined "Ne" as "Implicit Object Statics" because she thought "Ne" is all about the "essence" of an object; but really, the "essence" of an object is an Ne+Fi thing. Think about it: if Ne finds explicit static properties of sets and if Fi finds implicit static properties of objects, then the "essence" of an object is "what set it belongs to".
Here's IEE/SLI duality:It does make sense from a "balance/yin-yang" pov that an ego would need both explicit and implicit, but not if the individual if seen as a subset of a larger unit i.e. duality.
Strength Valued Unvalued / Valued UnvaluedIEE / SLIThe "strength" values for each function perfectly complement each other: even though Ti has a strength of 4 for SLI and of 1 for IEE, Ti is for SLI an "unvalued function".4 Ne Fe / Si Ti
3 Fi Ni / Te Se
2 Te Se / Fi Ni
1 Si Ti / Ne Fe
Now let's get a closer look by analyzing the definitions of the leading functions:
"Ne" = "Explicit Field Statics"So "Ne" and "Si" both look for properties of "fields" or "conditions", but one finds "explicit" and "static" properties while the other finds "implicit" and "dynamic" properties. There is no overlap, and thus they complement each other."Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics"
I'm not sure I agree that a-SFs (nice abbreviation ) are very adept at mind-reading, but I could be wrong. I'll have to pay closer attention next time I'm out in the wild.
Not sure what part you're referring to, but I did find this part a bit amusing:
Most of the "serious" socionists who claim that type doesn't change are in full defense mode when someone asks them to actually define what they mean about type and refuse to do so. It's basically the only way to maintain the illusion and continue the loony-talk.
If only I were around back then, I would've simply replied "biological neural networks, man".
I'd again say it depends on type and type mix of social environment. I'd also like to mention gender as a possible determinant; I think male feelers probably have it worse than female feelers or male thinkers. My question is this: is it worse on average to be a male feeler or a female thinker?
Fair enough.
Interesting! Could that be how he came up with this list:
It's crazy, but I actually agree with most of his assertions here.ESE - natural, simple, artless emotions.
EIE - artificial, crafted, playacting emotions.
LII - natural, basic logic; the logic of natural laws.
LSI - artificial logic, the logic of regulations and decrees created and adopted by people.
SLE - natural strength, which subordinates those who are weaker.
SEE - artificial strength, which allows to exert influence over those who are more powerful.
IEI - natural sense of time, the course of events unfolding into the future.
ILI - artificial sense of time, the course of events oriented at the past.
IEE - natural ideas, naturally possible prospects.
ILE - artificial ideas, alternatives of the impossible, of the hyperreality.
SLI - natural sensory experiences and comfort.
SEI - artificial sensing, created, crafted comfort.
LIE - natural benefit, attained by personal, individual enterprise.
LSE - artificial benefit, derived through organization of labor.
ESI - natural relations, dedicated and loving his own, rejecting of outsiders.
EII - artificial relations, forgives transgressions, treats outsides as his own.
I could definitely see it.
Or perhaps Mother Nature just hasn't had enough time to weed them out. I do kinda think the Delta quadra is on its way out, unfortunately.
EIE, ILI, or LII.
Well, I guess if you see your lifestyle as "masturbatory" then you really aren't "satisfied". Let's also remember that "satisfaction" can mean almost anything; it doesn't necessarily mean "hedonism".
I define satisfaction-seeking as "doing what you want to do, whatever that may be and for whatever reason".
This is closest to the "@Johannus Bloem" methodology tutorial I'm still hoping will come some day. Too bad i'm tired, don't take this down, i'm going to read through somewhere the next week if I can get my mind quiet enough to absorb it all.