What is in this paragraph?

[Minde]

What, if any, functions/IM elements/dichotomies/whatever do you see in the following paragraph?

I have pretty much given up on the theory, or at least set it aside for now. So, instead, I am looking at and doing what drew me to the theory in the first place - people and how they work. I'm doing it in my own way with my own foci. It is my own, very personal model of human reality. And what I choose to focus on depends on my own current interest, which, unlike my model, I do not intend to be firm. My interest may remain or it may shift, and I don't care either way, though I realize it may disconcert some. On the other hand, I would like my understanding to be right and true, which means that it will not vary and change with a whim. I want to develop seeds and foundations of reality, upon which the rest of reality stands and can be built. What is built upon it may change and differ according to time and circumstance, but the kernel, the pattern, will remain correct - or, at least, that's what I want from it.

Additionally and not quite as importantly, who here, if any, identifies with any part of it?

[Expat]

Mainly .

[Minde]

*dies a little inside*

[Joy]

Ti dominance jumps out at me.

[Joy]

I re-read it, and that could probably be used as a description of Ti dominance.

[shakealittle]

Yeah, sorry Minde but I'm an ISTj and I definitely relate to the paragraph.

[Minde]

*dies yet a little more*

[Joy]

Why would that be a bad thing?

[Joy]

never mind

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

Perhaps I'm just really tired, but I read it multiple times before I quite understood what he meant. Basically he's saying that he's building a model that he wants solid, true, and unchanging, but the focus, side-trails and things built off of it will be floating with his whims. <-- written for my own benefit to clarify to myself.

Pretty much. I think it may be the best description of Ti I've ever read, in all honesty. Too bad it's unlikely that we could get permission to use it in the wiki.

[Logos]

Pretty much. I think it may be the best description of Ti I've ever read, in all honesty. Too bad it's unlikely that we could get permission to use it in the wiki.

Except I would take away the first two sentences if you were to use it for demonstrating Ti.

[Joy]

[Ritella]

I read it and sort of thought Fi.
The first two sentences, the part about "disconcerting some," and the overall disillusioned tone seem Fi.
The rest seems Ti, but I don't see a reason why that can't be the writer's role function.

[Joy]

It could be a function other than the first, but it's definitely Ti. (I do get a strong impression that it was written by a Ti dominant person though.)

[marooned]

Elaborating on my feeling about it... I was thinking... how does Fi move in a world defined by Ti? (like the Ti nature of Socionics)

Statements like

I'm going to do it my own way
It will be my very personal model of human reality
Even though it might disconcert people
I've given up on the theory, or decided to set it aside
That is how I want it
It will be more about my focus, which will shift as per my interest (FiNe?)

come to mind... Is this how Fi would navigate a Ti system?

There are a lot of statements about wanting it to be "true" or about it being unchanging or firm... would that have to be Ti? Both Fi and Ne are static.

Then there was the last bit about the unchanging kernel of it. Was that meant in the Ti sense of building a system, or in the Ne sense of a static picture capturing the essence of human reality?

Wanting to build it or develop it from a kernel? could that be Ne in terms of developing potentials?

In other words, if you asked FiNe to build a Ti model of human "personality," how would they approach it?

BTW, I'm not trying to imply there's no Ti in the paragraph.

[munenori2]

I'm not in good shape to elaborate at the moment, but I could see this paragraph as being FiNe in motive, yet using Ti to get that motive and make it systematic, communicable, and more clearly defined than what's going on beneath the surface. I can't take full credit for thinking this way, because a lot of it reminds me of something Gilly was saying earlier in the Stickam chat.

Also, this strikes me as something I've said before, when I started going into philosophy. Of course, over time I came closer to the idea that any stern system or foundation seemed incapable of capturing all the things I could see happening. As much as I might assert certain general rules regarding people, laws seemed undesirable, if not impossible. Maybe I can put this together better tomorrow.

[Expat]

I'm not in good shape to elaborate at the moment, but I could see this paragraph as being FiNe in motive, yet using Ti to get that motive and make it systematic, communicable, and more clearly defined than what's going on beneath the surface.

The author of the paragraph may well be EII, as well as other types, especially static ones; but the information element around which the paragraph is built is Ti.

And the most obvious solution is indeed Ti dominance and LSI in particular (although SLE could alo work).

[Logos]

It just seems kind of intellectually dishonest to try and determine how what obviously appears to be predominately Ti could be construed as Fi. The paragraph is certainly Ti, but Ti in what function (leading, creative, role?) is questionable.

[Expat]

It just seems kind of intellectually dishonest to try and determine how what obviously appears to be predominately Ti could be construed as Fi. The paragraph is certainly Ti, but Ti in what function (leading, creative, role?) is questionable.

Yes, pretty much.

As a general comment, that's something that's sometimes misunderstood by some people. As with this paragraph, it's perfectly possible to say which information element predominates in a piece of text, sometimes even a sentence. That, however, on its own, is just one small bit of evidence of a person's type. But if the same person seems to naturally and spontaneously use that particular information element in most of what they write and say, then it becomes strong evidence for the person's type.

[UDP]

*dies a little inside*

*dies yet a little more*

"dies"

?

[Minde]

"naturally and spontaneously" hm?



...it gets better and better...

[Logos]

"naturally and spontaneously" hm?



...it gets better and better...

You probably should not be so quick to jump to judgments regarding the implications yet.

[UDP]

You sound quite alarmed, Minde

[Minde]

You probably should not be so quick to jump to judgments regarding the implications yet.

I'm not jumping. More like - slowly exploding. Though that doesn't quite capture the sensation.


Anyway, if you find a nice walking path to a good judgment, would you be so kind as to give me directions?

[Expat]

Anyway, if you find a nice walking path to a good judgment, would you be so kind as to give me directions?

Collect evidence. Keep options open. Then decide when the evidence justifies the judgment. Perhaps revise it later at some point.

(not sure how helpful the above is).

[Minde]

Collect evidence. Keep options open. Then decide when the evidence justifies the judgment. Perhaps revise it later at some point.

(not sure how helpful the above is).

I'm not sure, either. I've been doing all that, with perhaps a little trouble with the third one. I don't seem to have gotten very far.

[UDP]

I have pretty much given up on the theory, or at least set it aside for now. So, instead, I am looking at and doing what drew me to the theory in the first place - people and how they work. I'm doing it in my own way with my own foci. It is my own, very personal model of human reality. And what I choose to focus on depends on my own current interest, which, unlike my model, I do not intend to be firm. My interest may remain or it may shift, and I don't care either way, though I realize it may disconcert some. On the other hand, I would like my understanding to be right and true, which means that it will not vary and change with a whim. I want to develop seeds and foundations of reality, upon which the rest of reality stands and can be built. What is built upon it may change and differ according to time and circumstance, but the kernel, the pattern, will remain correct - or, at least, that's what I want from it.

Yeah, seems
It's very subjective.
Seems to emphasis a static truth

As for what it says about the author, who knows. One paragraph can easily be taken out of context.

[Expat]

I'm not sure, either. I've been doing all that, with perhaps a little trouble with the third one. I don't seem to have gotten very far.

Then perhaps there is a thinking "in the way" of your and thinking.

[UDP]

Mmm

[Expat]

What, no comment from the "functional reading of paragraphs is bullshit" crowd?

[Minde]

Then perhaps there is a thinking "in the way" of your and thinking.

There are other possibilities, too (most of which either disturb me further or are unflattering), but I like the sound of that one better. Perhaps you could explain a little more what you mean by that?



Back to the quote - So far, most agree that it seems to come from a static viewpoint and that the majority of it is of a judging nature (as opposed to perceiving, e.g. Ne)? Yes?

[Expat]

There are other possibilities, too (most of which either disturb me further or are unflattering), but I like the sound of that one better. Perhaps you could explain a little more what you mean by that?

Not sure whether that's less unflattering. If you have a reason not to reach a certain conclusion - or to want to reach a conclusion - that may sort of overrule your logical analysis of the available evidence.

A reason is, for instance, your relationship to a certain person. One example is, for instance, the parents with difficulty to accept that their beloved daughter has committed a crime, despite all the evidence pointing in that direction. Or that a kidnapped child is probably already dead, despite, again, the logic and evidence strongly suggesting that. Etc.

Back to the quote - So far, most agree that it seems to come from a static viewpoint and that the majority of it is of a judging nature (as opposed to perceiving, e.g. Ne)? Yes?

Most agree that, more than that, what you get there is, more precisely, Ti, which is, of course, static and rational. But that's the paragraph, in isolation. It's not enough evidence to say much about the author's type.

[UDP]

I suspect Expat was meaning something along the lines of your relationship to the person (what you think of them) interfering in the actual objective judgment of the person/quote. Perhaps taken further, your relationship with the person (if particularly positive or negative, especially), might make you want that person to be of a certain type/functional composure, and that wanting to see them as something might affect your judgment more than looking at things objectively. But we'll have to wait for Expat to see what he really meant.


As far as the second part of your post, the quote alone seems to imply something rational and judgmental, and static. However, that is one paragraph. It could be related to Ne, perhaps, if the person saying it was ENTp. (Einstein's theories and quest for one that would explain everything in the universe). But that is only one possibility.

[Expat]

I suspect Expat was meaning something along the lines of your relationship to the person (what you think of them) interfering in the actual objective judgment of the person/quote. Perhaps taken further, your relationship with the person (if particularly positive or negative, especially), might make you want that person to be of a certain type/functional composure, and that wanting to see them as something might affect your judgment more than looking at things objectively. But we'll have to wait for Expat to see what he really meant.

That's pretty much it, as applied to this particular situation; I tried to give a more general explanation.

As far as the second part of your post, the quote alone seems to imply something rational and judgmental, and static. However, that is one paragraph. It could be related to Ne, perhaps, if the person saying it was ENTp. (Einstein's theories and quest for one that would explain everything in the universe). But that is only one possibility.

Yes, again, let us differentiate the two questions:

1) What information element is predominant in this paragraph? Answer: Ti
2) What is the type of the author of the paragraph? Just one paragraph is too little evidence

[Ezra]

What, if any, functions/IM elements/dichotomies/whatever do you see in the following paragraph?

That, to me, is quite clearly Ti.

Was it Smilingeyes who wrote it?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Blaze]

it seems leading Ti to me, not creative.

creative Ti is more like looking at chaos and drawing a structure over the parts of it that can be structured. not so much building a structure and saying that everything else flows from this structure.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Minde]

Not sure whether that's less unflattering.

Probably not. I guess I was just being unrealistically optimistic. What can I say - hope springs eternal.

If you have a reason not to reach a certain conclusion - or to want to reach a conclusion - that may sort of overrule your logical analysis of the available evidence.

A reason is, for instance, your relationship to a certain person. One example is, for instance, the parents with difficulty to accept that their beloved daughter has committed a crime, despite all the evidence pointing in that direction. Or that a kidnapped child is probably already dead, despite, again, the logic and evidence strongly suggesting that. Etc.

Ah, I see.

I suspect Expat was meaning something along the lines of your relationship to the person (what you think of them) interfering in the actual objective judgment of the person/quote. Perhaps taken further, your relationship with the person (if particularly positive or negative, especially), might make you want that person to be of a certain type/functional composure, and that wanting to see them as something might affect your judgment more than looking at things objectively. But we'll have to wait for Expat to see what he really meant.

Hm, perhaps, perhaps...

That, to me, is quite clearly Ti.

Was it Smilingeyes who wrote it?

No, the author is most certainly not Smilingeyes. Not even close. Unless you mean in the socionics sense. Because last I knew he would put this person in his own quadra. But, no, he had nothing to do with its writing.

Now, so far, I would think that this fits nicely into everybody's built up ideas on the matter. Especially for those who consider SE a Ti type. However, knowing the real author, it throws me even more off balance.

The problem arises because it is indeed a very natural and spontaneous piece of thought from a person who most would have said is not a Ti type.