There are many fields where progress is rapid and then slows to a seeming halt, during which time people debate what it all means.Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
I'm not saying they were wrong; I'm saying that Socionics stalled in the 80s and it needs to evolve. An additional layer of structure is not a complication; it's progress.......
a.k.a. I/O
Often the impetus for further progress comes from a seemingly unrelated field.
Here are some examples that illustrate the functions (see post 119 or OP):
A=B, B=C, therefore A=C ... Si- knows that A=B and B=C, so it is not about a relationship between two (or more) letters/objects. Te+ draws a conclusion, i.e. "therefore A=C".
B=C, therefore A=C ... Ni+ perceives a possible relationship between A and B. Te- speculates that A and B are equal.
A person observes an interaction between a wife, husband and another woman. The wife is arguing with the woman. Ni- perceives a possible relationship between the woman and the husband. Fe+ speculates that it is probably a sexual relationship.
Fe+ is also about a relationship, so it doesn't know the most relevant relationship. Te-, on the other hand, knows that A=B is a relevant speculation.
The examples describe outcomes produced by amorphous processes. There are huge limitations on understanding when processes are only identified at a black-box level: whatever produces this particular type of outcome with this type of input gets the same label. The only way to reduce anomalies is to introduce more black-boxes but this will only serve to approximate the real system, not define it......
a.k.a. I/O
I think you just described ILI in a nutshell, i.e.: they "outline" things with increasing specificity, sometimes to the point of Ptolemaic complexity... like giving every example of what 2+2 doesn't equal. they take a task and proceed by examining all the ways it can fail and create a system essentially of thou shall nots until everything that remains (i.e.: what is still essentially a black box) can't go wrong and then they would say it doesn't matter. the problem is its an extremely inefficient way of approaching some things that can be handled directly with CD Ti. it also requires they orient themselves around a task, and makes them unsociable (general negativism combined with Fe polr). this gives them that sort of disconnected quality because unless they're engrossed in some concrete task they're just sort of floating and they're not exactly getting a lot of invites to do other non work related activities. so they just sort of hang out and bounce ideas around in their head, but its got a more anxious and less relaxed quality to it. Gulenko actually describes Fi as kind of an "anxious" function and in this context im making the comparison between Si and Fi launcher between LII and ILI
You and I have discussed this before. My (and socionists') focus is: What kind of information does a function process? Your focus is: How does a function/cognitive process actually work?The examples describe outcomes produced by amorphous processes. There are huge limitations on understanding when processes are only identified at a black-box level: whatever produces this particular type of outcome with this type of input gets the same label. The only way to reduce anomalies is to introduce more black-boxes but this will only serve to approximate the real system, not define it......
a.k.a. I/O
The big question is whether these definitions cover all kinds of information or not. Socionists tried external/internal, static/dynamic and object/relationship... and failed.
You keep referring to Model G, but nobody knows A) how Gulenko got his dichotomies B) the relationship between the dichotomies and the model C) what kind of energy it is D) how externalities/internalities actually work ... LII's Ti is directed towards society and Ne is not... that makes no sense whatsoever
I get repetitive when someone suggests that without knowing how a function actually works, the information that it processes can be predicted. It's somewhat like trying to determine how to properly feed 8 (or more?) unknown, unseen animals by only visually monitoring their combined feces and then labeling each animal according to it's predicted food consumption.
a.k.a. I/O
another problem is they see the world through the pimple on their nose, i.e.: I want to ask petter if he's actually read gulenko, or he's judging gulenko's output entirely based on what I've explained to him about it, he's not really critiquing gulenko even though he purports himself to be. he's actually got only the most attenuated link possible to the actual material he comments on, and yet he believes that to be wholly sufficient in order to draw a conclusion. its more like he's commenting on gulenko vis-a-vis me which makes it more of an empty debate and not a real discussion of socionics itself. it never reaches the underlying subject matter
You don't have to know how a function works in order to know what kind of information it processes. For example, there is obviously a cognitive function/process that determines the relative size of objects. This description is itself a certain kind of information. The actual process of weighing/evaluating also "produces" information, which is unknown to us. But that information is irrelevant.I get repetitive when someone suggests that without knowing how a function actually works, the information that it processes can be predicted. It's somewhat like trying to determine how to properly feed 8 (or more?) unknown, unseen animals by only visually monitoring their combined feces and then labeling each animal according to it's predicted food consumption.
a.k.a. I/O
um yeah but its also obvious by definition so you're not really adding anything unless you can roll that into something more than a collection of obvious facts
-
gulenko is literally the most prolific socionist
But that doesn't mean he is right.
We are trying to distinguish between 8 different kinds of information. That is not an obvious task... socionists have tried hard but failed.
good thing that wasn't my argument
Yes, I have read Gulenko and he doesn't make any sense.
"Any self-regulatory activity involves at least 4 steps: goal definition, implementation, input(collecting the data) and output (presentation of the result).
In socionics, the minimalist model has 4 blocks as well. Let's take a better look.
Block 1: the government of the psyche, in charge of setting goals and making decisions
Block 2: execution of the decisions made at stage 1
Block 3: result presentation
Block 4: (the most sensitive) new data input/ collecting the feedback"
LII has Ti/Ne... then Ni/Fe (!?) ... "Mission: to contribute to socion showing their specialization".
He ignores the fact that Ti and Ne are static functions, and Ni and Fe are dynamic functions (in Socionics).
Another big problem is that Ti/Ne doesn't make decisions. Otherwise a person would make four different kinds of decisions (Te, Ti, Fe and Fi). But we don't... we do four evaluations but make one decision.
A third problem is that we don't see Ni/Fe in LII. IEI's mystical insights completely contradict LII's clarity.
Last edited by Petter; 09-18-2018 at 05:51 AM. Reason: '...and Fi' instead of '...and Te'
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote