PDA

View Full Version : Accepting/Creating, Static/Dynamic, and Limiting/Empowering



krieger
03-28-2008, 03:13 PM
An attempt at creating abstract descriptions of the notions Accepting/Creating, Limiting/Empowering, and their roles in the distribution over Static/Dynamic in dual couples. Needless to say, this is a TiNe heavy area. Expect regular updates.

Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic: A constatation. The event of noticing a piece of data that both invites new speculations and puts a limit on the possible situations outside. Also the activity of processing this data in the most meticulous way, tracking all possible oppurtunities to ruminate -- though not investing in a particular ruminatory attempt -- taking data for what it is and drawing sound conclusions from it.

Accepting/Empowering/Static: A rumination. An attempt at fitting an observation into a larger context, the result of which is taken to be contingent, one amongst many possible options and in itself not to be taken very seriously. Despite one's lacking faith in the rumination's validity one explores it in full with one's full reserve of attention. The act of studying a single element out of large number of options and not sticking to the findings. Any point made from this kind of function is one of the format: "this is possible state of affairs" althought this particular format of speech is often forgone in favor of more determined phraseology (something that often confuses people who are of different dispositions than the speaker).

Creating/Limiting/Static: A theoretical limitation. A factor that persisted through all attempted speculations. A part of reality that was found to limit the reach of one's imagination such that one was forced to acknowledge it as absolute. A principle that one comes to realize as impossible to ignore after long periods of deliberation. Also a product that one can transfer to others in the format of a belief to be either accepted or rejected by every recipient.

Creating/Empowering/Dynamic: An enigma. A frivolous, contingent expression of a principle operating behind the screens. The part of an observation that one wishes to understand but rarely does in an immediate way. A missing piece in the puzzle of ones understanding that only falls in place once one is met with the principle or law that brought the pertaining expression about. Also a reproduction of an expression of a principle that one does know, an application of a law allowing erudite, flairful behavior with a high degree of correctness in relation to the standards to which said behavior is held. The claim that a certain observable thing is true made from firm knowledge of what one is talking about.

Accepting function: this function deals with lawless information. It is data that is handled and worked with, predicted rather than understood and deduced from. It is understood to be the irreducable essence of the world that any questions about are unintelligible; impossible to answer due to the self-evidence of the matter. The accepting function signifies a person's ability to be flexible, to adapt and to respond quickly to the situation at hand. Any data regarding this function can be used and processed in an immediate way without complications.

Creating function: this function deals with lawful information. It is data that is tried to be understood in a deep way and to be found laws and principles in. It is understood to be reducible to it's counterpart form of information, rather meaningless in itself but a useful way of organizing real information such that it is a container in which large deposits of information are held. The creating function signifies a person's work efforts, his/her attempts and acheivements to trancend his/her normal position. Data regarding this function can only be handled upon having succeeded at understanding the hidden part of the world that came to have it make sense.

FDG
03-28-2008, 06:02 PM
Me likes them.

krieger
04-22-2008, 05:58 PM
Some knowledge that is needed for any person to understand the info in the thread properly:

- Under my theories, any type is said to be diffusely a member of the temperament (and thought style) of it's dual and contrary. ISFj, for example, is diffusely Ej (Positive Result), dynamically resembling an odd mixture of ENTj and ESFj. In essence this is nothing new, because the model A claims this exact same thing when it tells us we possess "ID blocks" and "Super-ID-Blocks" besides our "Ego Block".

- Accepting Static functions are Empowering
- Accepting Dynamic functions are Limiting

Any type possessing an Accepting/Empowering/Static function, possesses an Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic function as a diffuse function. The two functions are understood to work jointly.

Passively, this diffuse accepting function will resemble the function of the dual more than it will resemble that of the contrary. In moments of activity, however, the diffuse contrary variant of the function will become more and more visible.

The process at hand when these diffuse functions work together with the ordinary accepting function is one in which information of the form of the dual transforms into information in the form of the contrary type by use of a directive, or a map, that was constructed on the level of the "ego block" functions.

We can distinguish between a "valued" form of the diffuse accepting function and an "unvalued" form of it. The former would correspond with the accepting function of the dual, the latter with the accepting function of the contrary.

My own terminology for valued/unvalued functions is as follows:
Valued: constatating, registering, "accepting", supported, peaceful
Unvalued: dictating, establishing, "creating", unsupported, combattive

Valued functions are peaceful in the sense that they pertain to discussion of things that one knows one has similar ideas about as others. In other words, they are peaceful because they are supported. Unvalued functions are combattive because they are unsupported, because they pertain to discussion of things that one has newly invoked ideas and thoughts about which can at certain points conflict with those of the surroundings.

Given a diffuse valued function and a diffuse unvalued function, I understand the former to redictate the latter in terms of itself. Or rather, I understand the ego functions to dictate that latter in terms of the former. Given this "dictating" mechanism, the information relating to the unvalued functions are looked upon in a different way than that relating to the valued functions. Valued information is accepted uncritically. Unvalued information is judged to be true or false according to what one knows the valued information says about the pertaining matter.

----

So what am I doing in this thread...? I am reïnventing model A. Or rather finding out that my understanding of socionics functions corresponds with that model; something that I did not initially take for granted and must say I am quite relieved about. Further, I notice that socionics' patriarchs have made a fatal mistake in not noticing the difference in roles between Static and Dynamic types, and the associated difference in roles between Static and Dynamic functions. The result of all this will be a new version of socionics model, one in which the emphasis is first placed on similarity between types of the same temperament and thought style AND their duals/contraries (the groups formed by taking any type together with it's dual, super-ego and contrary) and only then on difference between types.

(One possible inadequacy of the current incarnation of the theory: insufficient consideration for the difference between Rationals and Irrationals.)

krieger
04-28-2008, 12:18 AM
Some loose comments on the most challenging and most important of the dichotomies by a long stretch, the judgment/perception dichotomy. It really shouldn't be called a dichotomy seeing as how types are never fully dominated by either, but the word should momentarily suffice.

Whenever something, anything, is perceived, I understand there to be both a judgment- and a perception element to the act of perceiving. What this means is that one does not go in phases at perceiving first a "perception" thing, then a "judgment" thing, then again some perception, etcetera. No. It's both judgment and perception in one go.

Another paradigm that I do not support is that of an act of "judgment" that happens after the act of "perception" as some kind of reorganizing activity.

A paradigm that is interesting but not strictly right in my views is that of "judgment" acting as some kind of filter, discarding data and letting other data through. A paradigm stemming from observation of rational types. In my views the pertaining observed behavior should be understood in terms of how a situation is understood only after being revisited in rational types. I will ultimately explain this in terms of how their perceiving function is only "limiting" when "static", in other words, "creating", time and energy consuming.

A number of ideas I'd like to combine when I formulate a description of judgment and perception:

- that of states and transitions; a concept that seems to recur wherever modelling of some sort is concerned; this concept is trivially equivalent to that of nodes and relations in graphs
- that of a transition being equivalent to a comparison between two entities; by knowing how two entities are different, we know how one morphs into the other
- that of a dividing line between two areas
- that of an event, separating past from future

tcaudilllg
04-28-2008, 01:20 AM
Honestly, I don't even think in terms of J/P anymore. Socionics Ps think they are the decisive ones from the MBTI standpoint, so isn't it just totally relativistic? As it is, decisions are only really made on basis of a prior determination. If the determination is made by a socionics J, then it'll appear in the context of previous determinations but be independent from them: a truth on its own merits. However a P determination will always be an extension of previous deteminations. You might call J horizontal and P vertical: J builds based on what's already there, but on a completely new and independent foundation (choosing to department store next to a burgeoning suburb, for example); P builds ever upward, always using the same singular foundation throughout life.

However, one thing about the dichotomies that is absolute, is socionics Js MUST have closure -- it's all they ever think about. Closure for Ps only means not having to worry about what comes later... as I said it's totally relativistic.

I do think your cautious nature suits you to this task, because it lets you see better what the counter-arguement to an assertion will be.

krieger
04-30-2008, 07:15 PM
About the notions Abstract and Concrete, or - and + respectively.

Per introduction, these refer to what side of the function cycle each of the two functions that the ego block of a type consist of are on:

+ side ************ - side
N -> T -> S -> F -> N -> etc

NTs: N+ T-
STs: S- T+
SFs: S+ F-
NFs: N- F+

The first consideration should be wether these exist at all or wether they are just fictions. I say they do exist for real, because they are the only thing that could give rise to the existance of the small-cycle Reinin dichotomies (positive/negative, taciturn/narrator, process/result, aristocrat/democrat).

-- to be more precise: one can of course postulate the existence of the four small Reinin dichotomies independently, but the existence of +/- aspects to the functions necessitates the existence of all four and is hence a far more powerful theoretical construct in terms of explanatory yield.

I find these easiest to understand in relation to the Intuition -> Thinking -> Sensation part of the cycle. On the other half of the cycle there is something going on that is similar to what goes on on this part, but can not usually be spoken about in the same way...

There is a slight problem with the names of these notions. In my understanding of them, the names should be reversed. It is the + side that is more general, more abstract, less defined and more fluid, and the - side that correspondingly has the opposite of these qualities. But like I said earlier, the opposite could well be said of the other side of the function cycle. It's a slightly confusing situation. I will use the + and - signs to avoid ambiguity.

I find it useful to relate these to the Accepting/Creating dichotomy.

To recap:
Accepting function signifies immediate reaction, creating function signifies deeper deliberation (aka grouping together such immediate reactions and considering multiple of such simultaneously).

More recap:
When +/- is related to Accepting/Creating, the Process/Result aspect emerges:
Process: Accepting function is +, Creating function is -
Result: Creating function is +, Accepting function -

Slightly artificial:
Process: first looking at an object, then studying that particular object; identifying it's internal details. Transition from shallowness to depth increases the focus of thought.
Result: first looking at an object, then identifying it's place in an overlooking map of the situation. Transition from shallowness to depth decreases the focus of thought.

Process: studying issues one comes across in life, a clean slate for every encountered problem
Result: learning to navigate through life, a set of learned principles predating one's reactions to encountered events

As a rule, it can be said that - signifies increased focus, whereas + signifies decreased focus...

krieger
04-30-2008, 07:24 PM
Dynamic functions: what you use when you first encounter a situation. Appearances and immediate facts.
Static functions: what you use when once a situation is revisited many times. Maps, constructs and definitions. (Static functions are also used upon first encountering a situation, but their results are unreliable at this stage; initially, the Static activity is guesswork. Only upon revisitation does the quality of the results improve)

Gamma NT: intellectual Dynamics - they want to have a kind of logical certainty that gives reliable results from the get-go
Alpha NT: intellectual Statics - they want to guess and guess until they find something reliable

In the dynamic blocks, the accepting function axis is "limiting". Accepting + Dynamic signifies that which you immediately register about an observation. A piece of knowledge that can be used to predict future happenings from the moment one picks it up.

In the static blocks, the creating function is "limiting". Creating + Static signifies the knowledge one attains from visiting an issue over and over again.

I link the accepting function to the concept of "prediction"... Regularities of the format "when something that appears like this occurs, something that appears like this will follow" are discovered and exploited at the hands of the Accepting function axis.

Dynamic limiting: currently/contingently (yet undenyably) true
Static limiting: always/neccesarily true (under all evaluated cases)

but:
Dynamic Empowering: currently/contingently appearing so due to...
Static Empowering: always/neccesarily possible given that...

Comments:
Accepting Ni is an odd function because it studies "appearances" in detail. It could be called the function of accurate description. It does revisit situations in order to single out different details.

All intuition functions also have this aspect of revisitation to them, because by revisting a situation that is arbitrarily configured, it can learn more and more about it by singling out different aspects...

krieger
05-04-2008, 08:22 PM
Understanding sentences of the format "X gives a ball to Y" in terms of sequences...

The riddle is solved by introducing a notion of simultaneity.

"X looses a ball" when simultaneously "Y receives a ball"

(when simultaneously "X smiles" when simultaneously "Y expresses it's thanks", etc).

where "X looses a ball" is understood as "X with posession of ball becomes X without posession of ball"

krieger
05-10-2008, 07:58 PM
Imported from the general discussion board:


I heard that Minus elements are about "creating an excess" of IM elements

This is in line with user Smilingeyes' interpretation of + and -. He always believed that information of the + kind got turned into information of the - kind at the hands of a person. The stuff that is the result of the transformation (-) is what the person accordingly ends up with in excesses.

What is odd about the view is that it is not easily reconciled with the notion of accepting and creating functions, which initially seem to respectively denote the exact same things (user Jonathan has noticed this too)... recently, though I have been investigating the notion of limiting and empowering functions, according to which there exists such a thing as a function that is empowering, creating, dynamic AND +. (it is + yet not accepting; is it the beginning or the end of something?) Applying interpretation I get: frivolous/contingent, thought to be lawful / requiring much thought to be understood (combining the last two: problematic due to a lack of understanding), based on direct observation AND the beginning of a transformation... This kind of function would signify the beginning of what Gulenko calls the "induction" of the Result types (which this kind of function is peculiar to).

Understanding the difference between accepting/creating and +/-, both of which are said to signifiy beginning and end, ultimately comes down to understanding the thinking of the Result group of types. In the Process groups, the two coïncide and are thus not problematic.

* I am highlighting the dynamic function because it relates to direct observation. One could highlight the static (limiting) function, which would result a form of thought where one deduces a fact from a "modeled" understanding (a belief)... but this can not be a real beginning, because the model or the belief must come from somewhere.


It is true, minus elements are always on the verge of overwhelming plus elements because they are the object and plus is the subject.

I agree with the explicit message of this statement. - signifies focus, whereas + signifies decreased focus. The former signifies studying an object, the latter recognizing the placement of the object within an overlooking view of the situation (the subject's position).

krieger
05-11-2008, 01:24 AM
Something else...

Smilingeyes calls Negativism deductive and Postivism inductive.

Gulenko calls Process deductive and Result inductive.

Now what should be realized is that Negativism/Positivism is a dichotomy relating to types, whereas Process/Result is a dichotomy relating to dual-couples.

In the post above this one I describe Static + Negativism (Result) as deduction from a modeled understanding... I reach this conclusion spontaneously from my own understanding, and it is in line with Smilingeyes' views.

The roles of Static and Dynamic types are of importance...

Dynamics can be understood as "coming to undestand the game that is being played"

Static can be understood as "the act of playing the game with the intent of getting good results"

Rather, dynamics is about the part of action in which a reaction is necessitated, whereas statics is about the part of action where one has agency and needs to deal with the results of one's actions (responsibility).

Process types are Negative Dynamic and Positive Static. They play a "deductive" game (one with deterministic rules) and try to win by using induction to find shortcuts to an answer.
Result types are Positive Dynamic and Negative Static. They play an "inductive" game (one with stochastic rules) and try to win by forming rules that allow deduction.

* I have placed quote marks around the words deductive and inductive where their uses aren't entirely felicitous... deduction signifies certainty to me, knowing what will happen, whereas induction signifies uncertainty, guesswork, to me. In this sense I feel a corrolation with determinism and stochosticism is warranted.

Positive-process-static: Eureka! I did this and that *describes chaotic actions that are impossible to follow* This is the answer! *describes a result that perfectly make sense*
Negative-result-static: It works like this *describes a perfectly logical and structured view*, and the results are as follows. *describes a series of chaotically configured, incoherent facts*

krieger
05-16-2008, 07:37 PM
Another thing...

Information of the "external" kind is rigidly configured. The configuration of details is the information. You could call a "piece" of information of this kind a "configuration".

Configurations of this kind are denoted rather than described. They are simply pointed at, or called by a name. They can also be described (which would require an act of decomposition into the parts that the configuration consists of) but the moment this is done, the result is information of the "internal" kind.

Information of the "internal" kind is information about a single aspect of a configured whole. The aspect is understood as a part of a whole, but the whole that the aspect was taken from is not necessary for an understanding. In fact, an aspect constitutes that which all configurations that it is a part of have in common.

A configuration is essentially a mathematical tuple, whereas an aspect is a mathematical set...

The resolute group of types (valued Ni + Se) denotes objects in the world outside and describes it's own experiences in terms of these. The reasonable group of types (valued Ne + Si) denotes it's own experiences and describes the world outside in terms of these.

Further... unvalued information is distinguished from valued information in how it is considered situationally rather than universally. We generally try to carry as little of the "unvalued" kind of information with us as we need to, tending towards considering it cumbersome or even misleading. Only when we strictly need to use "unvalued" information do we produce it from the "valued" information we have at our disposal.

Also...

I have learned what the "empowering" aspect of information is called on the philosophical scene: "underdetermination". Static/Accepting/Empowering information is an attempt at filling in an underdetermined part of a situation, whereas Dynamic/Creating/Limiting information is information that is considered contingent because the expression of a principle is thought to be underdetermined in form (eg. a principle can find expression in many ways) such that the manifest expression does not immediately show what principle is at work at the particular time.

krieger
05-16-2008, 08:10 PM
More thoughts...

Whenever I make an observation, I first register a single construct of the "dynamic" kind...

then an explosion of possibilities as to what happens "behind the screens" is generated using the static functions...

Then as I accumulate more observations, these possibilities get eliminated one by one.

Once there is only a single possibility left, I understand the situation.

krieger
05-16-2008, 08:14 PM
Imported from general discussion:

Accepting = simple and immediately ready for use (prediction)
Creating = complex, assumed to be lawful, needing much thought to be understood

The first time (first time usage = dynamic functions) you pick up info of the accepting kind it is immediately "limiting" (fully known/absolute), while the info of the creating kind is at first "empowering" (contingent/frivolous/hinting at something greater) and only becomes "limiting" when the process of grouping together that marks the transition from Dynamic to Static thought is completed.

Take things like dictionary definitions. Rationals like us pick these up and use them in an immediate way, whereas irrationals will usually go looking for the reason why a word is defined as meaning a certain thing. You can easily convice a rational by pointing out such a definition. Not so with irrationals. Smilingeyes' approach to typology was to relate everything to a definition. This is the rational way of thinking.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that Static Accepting functions work MUCH different from Dynamic Accepting functions. The latter simply register and play by the rules. The former make an attempt at "guessing" at what is going on in an underdetermined part of the situation. Accepting Ti, for example, is all about jumping conclusions to an interpretation of a fact. But: it takes none of the particular results for granted. The result is "one out of many", "just an attempt" and it is only when all elements within a certain context are explored that the person will consider the situation fully understood.

krieger
05-16-2008, 08:19 PM
Honestly, I don't even think in terms of J/P anymore. Socionics Ps think they are the decisive ones from the MBTI standpoint, so isn't it just totally relativistic?

Good to see you found the thread.

That is why I say:

Accepting function axis = decisive, quick-and-dirty
Creating function axis = slow, contemplative, hessistant

Also, contrary to MBTI wisdom that says irrationals are sponaneous:

Accepting function axis = spontaneous, bantering
Creating function axis = serious, philosophical

Hmm... This is still slightly imperfect... Empowering functions can also be said to be the humorous ones...

This thread is very, very Creating-Ne heavy.

tcaudilllg
05-17-2008, 05:08 PM
More thoughts...

Whenever I make an observation, I first register a single construct of the "dynamic" kind...

then an explosion of possibilities as to what happens "behind the screens" is generated using the static functions...

Then as I accumulate more observations, these possibilities get eliminated one by one.

Once there is only a single possibility left, I understand the situation.

That's exactly how I do it. Neat stuff.

By "dynamic", you're referring to a type of construct, right?

krieger
05-22-2008, 06:33 PM
Dynamic refers to the set of functions {Ni, Te, Si, Fe}. Upon perceiving a certain thing one registers a node AND it's relations (comparisons) to previously registered nodes. Repeating the act of perception results in a structure in the form of a graph.

Like a mathematical tuple, a node has an arity number specifying how many internal parts the node contains. It may very well be that each of the internal parts (registers) is linked to a counterpart node with the characteristics of the dual seeking function of the function associated with the former node.

---

On a different topic...

Gulenko links the Process and Result catagories respectively to deduction and induction.

One problem with this correlation is the fact that a being that reasons either exclusively deductively or inductively is not capable of autonomous action. In fact, a form of reasoning that does not employ both deduction AND induction can hardly be called "reasoning" at all. In order to "deduce" there first has to be a general rule to deduce from. Likewise, if a being exclusively induces, it would never end up applying it's generalizations, thus making these gratuitous.

So, Gulenko's position is only tenable if one postulates that people use both the Process and Result kinds of reasoning in alternation.

I propose the alternative view that induction and deduction correlate as follows:

Induction is the process of deriving "Creating" information from "Accepting" information.
Deduction is the process of deriving "Accepting" information from "Creating" information.

Applying interpretation that I have revealed before:
Induction is the process of deriving Lawful information from Accidental information.
Deduction is the process of deriving Accidental information from Lawful information.

Which fits the definition of the terms perfectly.

Induction: Accepting -> Creating
Deduction: Creating -> Accepting

As to the Positivism/Negativism dichotomy...

Defined in the system as:
Postivism: +Empowering, -Limiting
Negativism: +Limiting, -Empowering

To undestand the dichotomy we need an interpretation of +/- and of Empowering/Limiting.

My views on Empowering/Limiting are firmly settled:
Empowering = underdetermined
Limiting = determined

As to +/-...

One interpretation is that - information "gets derived" from + information. In other words, upon having + information at one's disposal, one can get the associated - information as a free ride. Postulate the + and the - follows mechanically.

I was at first enthusiastic about this insight, but then I came to realize what this meant to the interpretation of Positivism/Negativism:

Positivism: given underdetermined you get determined
Negativism: given determined you get underdetermined

Which makes Positivism look like the deterministic one and negativism like the stochastic, contrary to my earlier estimations...

krieger
05-25-2008, 05:21 PM
Empowering means "thought to be underdermined", or "categorically underdetermined in the philosophy of the person".

But, when information of the "empowering" kind is given, even though the information is understood to be "underdetermined" in the sense that there is a whole range of possible "correct answers", a single "answer" out of this "correct range" is made available.

As such another way to denote "empowering" would be "arbitrary", or "contingent". The catagory of the information is characterized by "underdetermination", and each of the individual tidbits concerning that catagory is resultingly "arbitrary", as in "one out of many that are possible".

So, alternate interpretations are:

Positivism: given "contingent", you can derive "necessary"
Negativism: given "necessary", you can derive "contingent"
And of course:
Positivism: given "arbitrary", you can derive "necessary"
Negativism: given "necessary", you can derive "arbitrary"

krieger
05-25-2008, 08:33 PM
On the difference between Static and Dynamic types:

I'd like to introduce the terms "longitudinal" and "lattitudinal" thinking.

Statics think lattitudinally. Whenever they observe an event, their thoughts are occupied with "what else has happened". In this way they attain a very large store of facts about what happens at a certain moment, but are slightly hampered in their ability to predict what will happen next. They require to have seen the full details of a situation before they can understand it's position in a sequence. They create sequences of such fully defined situations.

Dynamics think longitudinally. Upon observing any happening they are concerned with "what will happen now". They don't understand "moments" in as much details as Statics do, but have a far greater ability to pre-empt progressions with their thoughts. They can understand the place of an observation in a sequence from the get-go, because they create such sequences from the observations themselves.

krieger
05-26-2008, 03:51 PM
Isn't this how model A denotes the flow of information from functions [5=>1]?

Yes, I do think the originators of the model A were getting at something similar. One of the things I am currently looking into, though, is if they might have been wrong about Dynamic types having the same sequence of model-A-numbers denoting function activity as Statics. The idea of starting "thoughts" at an Acceping Empowering function looks problematic from my perspective.

Keep in mind, though, that there are multiple theories around claiming things about succession of function activity in the model A. It may be worth doing a search for some of Machintruc's early postings. He has spent quite some time looking into that issue.


Result Ti? (As opposed to process Ti)

Hmm... First thing I should offer advice on is that "Result Ti" and "Process Ti" are both slightly awkward groupings in that they both combine two types that are so different that they can hardly be treated the same way.

Result Ti: INTj + ESTp
Process Ti: ISTj + ENTp

In any case, the "explosion of possibilities" is something that I associate with the Accepting Static functions, so it is not really a type dependent mechanism. Also, as you can read in my last few messages, I am still trying to properly figure Result/Process out. I am not sure yet how it enters into the thought experiment in question.

redbaron
05-28-2008, 03:28 PM
this is an amazingly cool thread! I need to reread it over and over again, though. So much here.....whoa.....

krieger
06-08-2008, 08:26 PM
Imported:

Ok...

My view on this is that any "empowering" function signifies a degree of freedom, and with that a certain part of the observed situation in which one is free to exercise choice.

Empowering = accepting static (Ne, Fi, Se, Ti) or creating dynamic (Ni, Fe, Si, Te)

However, accepting static functions signify highly RANDOM choices, "attempts", whereas creating dynamic functions signify educated, refined choices.

Accepting/Empowering/Static: I choose this because it COULD be the right answer
Creating/Empowering/Dynamic: I choose this because I know it IS one of the right answers

I would, of course, assume that this works the same in the slave type as it does in the master type.

Also keep the following in mind:

Extrovert TYPE = ego block empowering perceiving
Introvert TYPE = ego block empowering judging

In my interpretation, extroverted choice signifies the ability to explore, whereas introverted choice signifies the ability to choose wether one does or does not perform a certain action in light of knowledge of where the action in question would lead one to (note that the ability to explore is largely lost this way, as choice of action is based on knowledge of the end result).

Any way...

I'd look into the difference between ACCEPTING and CREATING Ne. You may find there are some major differences between the two with respect to wether they do or do not merit being called functions of choice.


More on extrovert/introvert (type wise, not function wise)

Extroverts attach value (good/bad) to actions/transitions, whereas introverts attach value to states/positions.

Perceiving function: states/positions/situations
Judging function: transitions/events/comparisons

Whichever of the two is Limiting, gets the value assigned to it...

Empowering functions are thought to regard "arbitrary" data. When something good/bad happens, the good/bad is understood to be characteristic of the non-arbitrary (Limiting) part of the observation.


Accepting/Empowering/Static: I choose this because it COULD be the right answer
Creating/Empowering/Dynamic: I choose this because I know it IS one of the right answers

If I am at this anyway...

Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic: This is right here in front of our noses. What is there to argue?
Creating/Limiting/Static: This HAS to be true. The possibilities don't permit anything else.

krieger
06-11-2008, 09:35 PM
About weak and strong socionics descriptors. Speaking directly from my understanding here and not particularly much concerned with justification... also note that this is one of those things that I am only just beginning to explore and only half understand myself:

Introvert/extrovert as related to functions (not types) is a very weak descriptor. The popularity this label enjoys in the discourse on this forum is unwarranted.

Limiting/empowering is quite strong in comparison. It is linked to both the static/dynamic dichotomy AND the accepting/creating dichotomy, which are the two strongest descriptors in the socionics terminology.

Static/dynamic can be distinguished immediately in a snapshot way. You can look at a person's behavior and pick it up instantly. This is one of the strongest descriptors. It does not matter wether you're talking about static/dynamic as related to types OR to functions either as "static type" means "has static functions" and "dynamic type" means "has dynamic functions". All the same thing.

Introvert/extrovert as related to types is quite strong, as it derives from limiting/empowering. Note that it is strong ONLY because of how it derives from the distribution of limiting/empowering over ego functions. The commonly cited rule that "introverts have introverted accepting functions" is of no merit as "introvert function" and "accepting function" are too weak descriptors to convey anything of meaning. Use "introverts have empowering judging functions" instead.

Accepting/creating is a strong trait of function axes (judging/perceiving), but a very weak trait as related to functions themselves. The limiting/empowering dichotomy has to be used in conjunction with it to fully describe the manifestory form of functions (this is what I've been doing at the beginning of this thread).

krieger
06-15-2008, 08:09 PM
Internal/external as related to functions, is another weak descriptor. It needs to be combined with perceiving/judging to attain any real meaning. Internal/external combined with perceiving/juding results in the descriptors Thinking/Feeling and Intuition/Sensing, which are all fairly strong.

Rational/Irrational as related to types is a strong descriptor. It determines the distribution of Introvert/Extrovert over the Static and Dynamic parts of the personality:

Rational = Extrovert Dynamic, Introvert Static
Irrational = Introvert Dynamic, Extrovert Static

Merry/Serious and Resolute/Reasonable are strong descriptors. Recently I have been picking up signs that Merry/Serious might in fact be a lot stronger than Resolute/Reasonable. This may well indicate that Thinking/Feeling is also a stronger descriptor than Intuiting/Sensing.
The above are stronger than the other large-cycle Reinin dichotomies because they can be explained in terms of synergy between types. All Merry types are synergetic with eachother, as are all Serious types, all Resolutes and all Reasonables.

The remainder of the large-cycle Reinin dichotomies is weak. They are "stand-alone" in the sense that they can not be explained in terms of other parts of the system. Their very existence as a technical entity is dubitable. Their most potent use is to help us understand the definitions of "accepting" and "creating", which should ultimately take their place in discourse.
Tactics = what creating S and accepting N have in common
Strategy = what creating N and accepting S have in common
Calculated = what creating Reasonable and accepting Resolute have in common
Carefree = what creating Resolute and accepting Reasonable have in common
Emotivist = what creating F and accepting T have in common
Constructivist = what creating T and accepting F have in common
Obstinate = what creating Serious and accepting Merry have in common
Compliant = what creating Merry and accepting Serious have in common

Nexus
06-16-2008, 12:16 AM
Introvert/extrovert as related to functions (not types) is a very weak descriptor. The popularity this label enjoys in the discourse on this forum is unwarranted.

Limiting/empowering is quite strong in comparison. It is linked to both the static/dynamic dichotomy AND the accepting/creating dichotomy, which are the two strongest descriptors in the socionics terminology.

I concur.


Process types are Negative Dynamic and Positive Static. They play a "deductive" game (one with deterministic rules) and try to win by using induction to find shortcuts to an answer.
Result types are Positive Dynamic and Negative Static. They play an "inductive" game (one with stochastic rules) and try to win by forming rules that allow deduction.

The poll in my signature hopes to separate ideological tendencies into rational/empirical and deterministic/statistic dichotomies and I am planning to eventually correlate the results to a preference in information metabolism (I personally expect S/N accepting types to favor deductive inference and T/F accepting types to favor inductive inference); can you list the types that correspond to negative dynamic/positive static and positive dynamic/negative static for comparison? I also encourage you to vote yourself (it's multiple choice):

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=19403
(http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=376434#post376434)

krieger
06-16-2008, 10:30 PM
can you list the types that correspond to negative dynamic/positive static and positive dynamic/negative static for comparison?

Sure.

Negative dynamic/positive static blocks in model A aka. Process:
ISTj, INFj, ESFp, ENTp, ESTj, ENFj, ISFp, INTp

Positive dynamic/negative static blocks in model A aka. Result:
ISFj, INTj, ESTp, ENFp, ESFj, ENTj, ISTp, INFp

Gulenko refers to the Process group as "deductive" thinkers and to the Result group as "inductive" thinkers, so you may in fact find a correlation with your earlier results here. It's certainly worth investigating.


(I personally expect S/N accepting types to favor deductive inference and T/F accepting types to favor inductive inference)

Ok. So that would be:
Irrational = deductive inference
Rational = inductive inference

One thing you'll want to take note of, is that Rational/Irrational correlates directly with Result/Process (respective order) in NT and SF types. In other words, Irrational NT -> Process, Rational NT -> Result. So, if you restrict your study to the NT types, you would find your estimations to be compatible with the thesis that Process = deductive inference and Result = inductive inference.

Nexus
06-17-2008, 09:20 PM
Sure.

Negative dynamic/positive static blocks in model A aka. Process:
ISTj, INFj, ESFp, ENTp, ESTj, ENFj, ISFp, INTp

Positive dynamic/negative static blocks in model A aka. Result:
ISFj, INTj, ESTp, ENFp, ESFj, ENTj, ISTp, INFp

Gulenko refers to the Process group as "deductive" thinkers and to the Result group as "inductive" thinkers, so you may in fact find a correlation with your earlier results here. It's certainly worth investigating.

Ok. So that would be:
Irrational = deductive inference
Rational = inductive inference

One thing you'll want to take note of, is that Rational/Irrational correlates directly with Result/Process (respective order) in NT and SF types. In other words, Irrational NT -> Process, Rational NT -> Result. So, if you restrict your study to the NT types, you would find your estimations to be compatible with the thesis that Process = deductive inference and Result = inductive inference.

Thank you, that helped a lot. As an NT I have trouble conceiving of other modes of operation so perhaps my initial hypothesis was short-sighted...do you have an idea of how the reverse might work in ST and NF types?

krieger
07-02-2008, 07:01 PM
do you have an idea of how the reverse might work in ST and NF types?

They are mostly concerned with applying the results of the NT/SF group's knowledge/rule seeking efforts to specific situations... As such, they apply what the other has found. This finding and applying are two processes that are in a certain way opposite to eachother. Hence why what to one is the deductive/derivative act is the inductive/instigative act to the other. I don't think I'll get closer to answering the question than that. :/

krieger
07-02-2008, 07:50 PM
A number of things that I would like to integrate into my theories...

The first is that of the difference between description and definition. Two notions that I believe respectively correlate with "introverted block" and "extroverted block".

The second, that of low and high arity phrases. A low arity phrase is one that is based on a very small number of reconciliations of observations, whereas a high arity phrase is one that is based on a large number of such reconciliations. Special attention should be given to the one-arity phrase, which is based on no reconciliations at all. Low arity phrases are characterized by high influence of the Dynamic and Accepting functions, whereas high arity phrases are characterized by high influence of the Static and Creating functions.

The third is that of a connection with the field of linguistics. Every phrase in human language consists of a Noun Phrase and a Verb Phrase. I theorize that there is a direct correlation with (respectively) Perception and Judgment.

krieger
07-02-2008, 07:57 PM
A description is a phrase of which the demarcative element is underdetermined.

X is big.

How big is X?

If I say, X is bigger than a horse, I turn by statement into a definition. However, if simply leave the statement as:

X is big.

What is read is: X is bigger than whatever the size criterion for "big" might be.

Hence, an underdetermined demarcative element.

I say: demarcative element correlates with Judgment

So: Empowering Judging

Which is peculiar to the Introverted Block.

krieger
07-02-2008, 09:39 PM
Statics MOSTLY speak/think in terms of high arity phrases, even when this is not warranted. As such, when they utter/think a high arity phrase but don't have enough information to warrant said phrase's validity, their utterance comes out sounding like a guess or attempt.

Dynamics MOSTLY speak/think in terms of one-arity phrases. When they have enough information about a situation to be able to describe it in high-arity phrases they still use low-arity phrases in the form of examples to convey their understanding.

I think both type groups have the ability to use the opposite way of speaking, employing it from their ID-blocks.

Introverts speak in descriptions, except when they are forcefully making a point (ID-block usage).
Extroverts speak in definitions, except when they are forcefully making a point (ID-block usage).

krieger
07-03-2008, 12:11 AM
I'm going to try to work towards a way of understanding things where no sepperation between Judgment and Perception is made. This will invalidate some of my earlier descriptions and explanations but is ultimately necessary for a good understanding of the difference between rational and irrational types.

Finding out about introvert block/extrovert block correlating with description/definition was the first step towards doing so. The focus of my explanations will henceforth be on function blocks, not functions.

Bukhalov's function dimension theory is a theory I consider problematic because it regards functions as sepperately existing entities, when in actuality they can only be understood as part of function blocks. I can not reconcile his findings with my own.

Nexus
07-03-2008, 12:40 AM
They are mostly concerned with applying the results of the NT/SF group's knowledge/rule seeking efforts to specific situations... As such, they apply what the other has found. This finding and applying are two processes that are in a certain way opposite to eachother. Hence why what to one is the deductive/derivative act is the inductive/instigative act to the other. I don't think I'll get closer to answering the question than that. :/

Thanks, that's similar to what I suspected.

FDG
07-03-2008, 05:28 AM
Statics MOSTLY speak/think in terms of high arity phrases, even when this is not warranted. As such, when they utter/think a high arity phrase but don't have enough information to warrant said phrase's validity, their utterance comes out sounding like a guess or attempt.

Dynamics MOSTLY speak/think in terms of one-arity phrases. When they have enough information about a situation to be able to describe it in high-arity phrases they still use low-arity phrases in the form of examples to convey their understanding.

I think both type groups have the ability to use the opposite way of speaking, employing it from their ID-blocks.

Introverts speak in descriptions, except when they are forcefully making a point (ID-block usage).
Extroverts speak in definitions, except when they are forcefully making a point (ID-block usage).

What does "arity" mean?

krieger
07-03-2008, 03:12 PM
"Arity" is a term used in mathematics to denote the number of elements an ordered set contains. I am using it in a slightly different capacity, namely to denote the number of reconciled observations a "phrase" is based on. I am struggling with the language a bit and am just using whatever makes do to express what I have in mind.

In math:
<a,b> would be 2-ary ordered set, that is, the arity is 2
<1,2,4> would be a 3-ary ordered set

and so on.

krieger
09-01-2008, 01:19 PM
To identify a thing, is to establish a theory on which names refer to the thing in question.

To interpret a phrase, is to establish a theory on which phrases said phrase is equivalent to.

Interpretation naturally occurs between any two phrases. When two 1-arity phrases are interpreted to be equivalent in meaning, a 2-arity phrase results. This phrase can onwards be interpreted as being equivalent in meaning to another phrase. The act of interpretation, as such, results in a phrase of arity number equal to that of the arity of the two constituent phrases' arity numbers added together. No complications occur when phrases of different arity numbers are combined.

Dynamics establish laws on the level of phrases themselves....

Whereas Statics establish laws on the level of "phrases equivalent to eachother"; in other words on the level of phrases grouped together as having equivalent meanings.

Thing = noumenom, reference
Name = phenomenom, sense

Every phrase consists of a noun-phrase and a verb-phrase. The former signifies Perception in socionics, the latter Judgment.

The former signifies the "phenomenom" and indirectly the "noumenom" that the "phenomenom" refers to.

The latter signifies a certain dividing line on either side of which said phenomenom/noumenom lies.

....

krieger
09-01-2008, 01:39 PM
The notion of a "one-dimensional scale" is important somehow.


-------|-------
<- P J P ->

Both the two areas on the scale can be refered to with a word.

To express the divide itself in language, however, a word does not suffice. A phrase must be used instead.



------------|-------------
<- Apple | Orange ->
red/not red

Assuming an artificial reality in which the only difference between apples and oranges is that the former are red whereas the latter are not.

The word "apple" refers to the left side of the divide. The word "orange" refers to the right side of the divide.

The divide itself is made evident when the following phrase is spoken: "apples are red".

[Apples][are red].
[Perception][Judgment].

But... these things are said of things that are observed in an immediate way: phenomena. To express Judgment on noumena, phrases like these need to be combined; interpreted. For some odd reason, the "limiting/empowering" quality of judgment FLIPS when this is done.

krieger
09-06-2008, 02:35 AM
Time is one of the simplest forms in which nature presents us with divisions.

An event is simply a divide between a past state and a current or future state.

If past and present are in any way different then the event is the point at which a proposition goes from being true to being false.

If temporal change is accompanied by movement of the observer of the change, then the event is linked to a spatial divide. An observer learns that one object is placed next to another on the left hand side, by finding out it is perceived next in sequence whenever one performs the action [move to the left] when standing on top of the former object.

The better word for object may yet be "situation" or "place"...

I suspect that the only difference between temporal divides and spatial divides is that the former are one-dimensional (peculiar to one sequence of observations) whereas the latter are multidimensional.

Essentially two moments in time can unproblematically be understood as two different places. But it doesn't become meaningful to do so until another set of moments perceived in sequence link to the same two spatially divided places.

A place is a grouping of moments.
A pathway exists between any two places, and an event exists between any two moments.

tcaudilllg
09-09-2008, 06:35 AM
Time is one of the simplest forms in which nature presents us with divisions.

An event is simply a divide between a past state and a current or future state.

If past and present are in any way different then the event is the point at which a proposition goes from being true to being false.

If temporal change is accompanied by movement of the observer of the change, then the event is linked to a spatial divide. An observer learns that one object is placed next to another on the left hand side, by finding out it is perceived next in sequence whenever one performs the action [move to the left] when standing on top of the former object.

The better word for object may yet be "situation" or "place"...

I suspect that the only difference between temporal divides and spatial divides is that the former are one-dimensional (peculiar to one sequence of observations) whereas the latter are multidimensional.

Essentially two moments in time can unproblematically be understood as two different places. But it doesn't become meaningful to do so until another set of moments perceived in sequence link to the same two spatially divided places.

A place is a grouping of moments.
A pathway exists between any two places, and an event exists between any two moments.

Interesting: you're saying that if something is one-dimensional, it equates to time; if it has more such dimensions, then it is spatial.

Obviously it follows that space is multidimensional time then. Hmm... more duality magic from Labcoat. ;)

krieger
11-23-2008, 08:55 PM
Process: "where does this go?"
Result: "where does this come from?"

- is inferred from +. The person feels s/he has + in abundance and - in shortage.

Accepting is the stuff that is understood as soon as it is picked up.
Creating is the stuff that is only understood when it has been looked at from many perspectives. One's understanding of these things needs to be constructed from the ground up.

Accepting = Limiting when Dynamic, Empowering when Static
Creating = Empowering when Dynamic, Limiting when Static

Limiting/empowering is difficult to capture... but powerful. There are a number of different ways to distinguish either that aren't easy to reconcile though they certainly are united in one concept:

Limiting: necessitated
Empowering: contingent
Limiting: fully determined
Empowering: under-determined
Limiting: in it's final state
Empowering: in a transient state
Limiting: must be
Empowering: could be
Limiting: singular (one possibility)
Empowering: multiplar (many possibilities)

I sometimes call Empowering "arbitrary". Not sure what the counterpart term is.

-- some of these describe the catagory of information while others describe a single unit that is a member of said catagory. For example, Empowering information is an under-determined catagory of information, which means it's individual members are contingent/arbitrary.

Accepting info is very safe and unpretentious. No one can disagree with it. It simply acknowledges something that exists.
Creating info is daring and precipitous. It's relyability depends on a great number of previous occasions. It may very well be wrong.

Interpose the two foregoing dichotomies with Static/Dynamic and you get some real cool stuff:
Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic: things that are simply acknowledged at face value. Pick it up and use it. No questions about it. Very safe and certain.
Creating/Limiting/Static: something encapsulated as a unit of understanding. Constructed from many observations and finalized after a long process of learning.
Accepting/Empowering/Static: something that was suggested as a possibility by one's direct observations. Something that could or could not be useful but undenyably exists as one of the many possibities.
Creating/Empowering/Dynamic: tricky... Something that is there but you don't know why. It invites wonder and curiousity. It can easily be copied and used but one would not know the significance of ones actions if one did. If a person ever does know what this kind of information is all about, it becomes the vessel of the person's most virtuous efforts. Application of a difficult to understand concept.

What we more or less learn from this:
Statics are all about boldly guessing things, bumping one's head, and finding out there are things you can't get around.
Dynamics are all about first behaving predictably and unpretentiously, then upon learning what's going on making the right moves with great erudition and skill.

Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic: I know this
Creating/Limiting/Static: I understand this
Accepting/Empowering/Static: this could be
Creating/Empowering/Dynamic: I see this, but why?

Already shown this stuff which "solves" the problem of how Judgment and Perception should be distinguished as far as I'm concerned:

Perception: determiner phrase ("the cat", "his ball", "Mary", "planets", etc)
Judgment: verb phrase ("walks home", "kicks the bucket", etc)

Perception is that which is denoted. Judgment is the fact that was expressed about the denoted thing.

In a graph or map of reality, Perception signifies the nodes, whereas Judgment signifies the relations/transitions between such nodes.

Perception: places, moments, areas
Judgement: events, dividing lines, transitions

-- I sometimes associate Judgment with "comparisons"... A comparison is the simple registering of a difference between two things, which in turn is the same as figuring out in what way the former object could transform into the latter and vice versa.

Static: behind the screens, indirectly met with and not reducable to any single utterance of language (each static bit of information unites many utterances that express the same thing)
Dynamic: face value, directly met with, identical to the utterance of language (registering does not take understanding; simply copying suffices)

-- can never help but feel I'm biased when I describe these.

Gottlob Frege:
Dynamic Perception (Pi): sense
Static Perception (Pe): reference

Immanuel Kant:
Dynamic Perception (Pi): phenomenom
Static Perception (Pe): noumenom
Dynamic Judgment (Je): synthetic fact
Static Judgment (Ji): analytical fact

-- The Pe, Ji, etc. symbols are there for convenience. I do not support use of an introvert/extrovert or object/field dichotomy in relation to functions/information aspects.

Dynamic signifies one-dimensional information, whereas Static signifies multi-dimensional information. Dynamic: flat information. Static: depth-sensitive information.

Dynamic is often associated with movement and Static with stasis. Hence why they are named the way they are...

In any case I can't find strong support for these associations...

...

I will copy this to my "abstract function descriptions" thread in the alternative socionics boards.

RSV3
11-24-2008, 01:17 AM
Process: "where does this go?"
Result: "where does this come from?"

Accepting = Limiting when Dynamic, Empowering when Static
Creating = Empowering when Dynamic, Limiting when Static

Limiting/empowering is difficult to capture... but powerful. There are a number of different ways to distinguish either that aren't easy to reconcile though they certainly are united in one concept:

Very interesting! Just to clarify, are these accepting/creating terms you use synonymous with the 1, 3, 5, 7 accepting functions and the 2, 4, 6, 8 producing functions of Model A, or something different entirely? Could you give concrete examples of how this limiting/empowering dynamic would manifest differently, say between the different accepting and creative functions of an ENTp and INTj or ESFj and ISFp?

mikemex
11-24-2008, 01:25 AM
I see all of this as pointless, but I obviously don't value Ti.

FDG
11-24-2008, 07:25 AM
Very interesting ideas indeed.

krieger
11-24-2008, 08:06 PM
I see all of this as pointless, but I obviously don't value Ti.

Obviously.


Very interesting! Just to clarify, are these accepting/creating terms you use synonymous with the 1, 3, 5, 7 accepting functions and the 2, 4, 6, 8 producing functions of Model A, or something different entirely?

Yeah, those, and no, not something entirely different. I'd like to emphasize that Accepting and Producing are about as misleading names as can be devised for them and in their current form only make sense in a very, very restricted context (apperantly one in which people are seen as transmitters and receptors of information...). If I had a say I'd call them "simple" and "complex" respectively. I sail on conventions when it prevents me from getting ostracized completely, though.


Could you give concrete examples of how this limiting/empowering dynamic would manifest differently, say between the different accepting and creative functions of an ENTp and INTj or ESFj and ISFp?

Sure. But as high as the level of abstraction is you're asking something very difficult of me. I can only give part of an answer.

First of all the background:
Static + Accepting makes Empowering
Dynamic + Creating makes Empowering
Static + Creating makes Limiting
Dynamic + Accepting makes Limiting

Descriptions of each are in the thread above.

The easiest of the types you asked about to understand is the ENTp.

ENTp's Ego Block: Empowering Static Intuition (empNe), Limiting Static Thinking (limTi).
The Ne of the ENTp is all about ranging over ways of understanding things. The ENTp litterally sees thousands of ways his observations can be combined into sensible "ideas". He doesn't want to limit himself, though. Each of the ideas is given the same attention; none are singled out. Ideas are "transient", "underdetermined of form" to ENTps and each individual idea is simply "arbitrary", "contingent" (hence why they love to cite alternatives when an INTj presents his singled out view). The Ti of an ENTp on the other hand is concerned with singling out an answer. Many of the possible ways he can fit things together are bound to have things in common, and when something is common between all ideas within a certain context, the ENTp locks it down as a fact. What you get is: a person who finds out the answer quicker than everyone else using his imagination.

Delve a bit deeper, though, and you get at the ENTp's Super-ID block, where s/he is the same as an ISFp except "weak":
ENTp's Super-ID Block: Limiting Dynamic Sensing (limSi), Empowering Dynamic Feeling (empFe)
What was it that triggered the imagination of the ENTp in the first place? This is where the "dynamic" functions come into play. Like I said "dynamic" functions are the functions of direct observation and direct registering of language. Since Si is Sensing what we're concerned with here is not something abstract but very concrete. Point at something and there it is. That there, not something else. Si can concern anything from a perceived picture to a sound heard from a first person perspective (though not objects themselves that have real life specifications; always the perspective from which objects are seen*). The fact that the ENTp is weak in this block means he doesn't pay much attention to how the sounds and pictures are placed in a sequence or graph. This he largely ignores (the ISFp knows better; she'll tell you all the details of a film after recognizing a single image of it). He doesn't navigate by them, but they are significant to him. How? Well, in that this stuff is exactly the stuff that he is trying to organize when he ranges over ideas. His ideas are simply combinations of these perspectives: this sound goes with this picture, this word with that film - and what do you get - there's your idea; an association network. The fact that empNe and limSi form an Accepting axis with the Dynamic bit being Limiting and the Static bit being Empowering, means that this single observed perspective creates an explosion of associations. This is what Accepting function axes do. The person has no questions about the stuff that was given at face value; s/he simply accepts that bit and doesn't worry about it. S/he does form tons of associations as to what happened behind the screens that brought the percept about.
I'm left with one function to explain: Creating Empowering Fe; a Dynamic Judging function. Remember that I spoke about the ENTp trying to single out an answer earlier. Fe concerns the social/emotional problem that the ENTp was trying to solve in the first place. As an Empowering Dynamic function, Creating Fe is a function of wonder and curiosity. It's something that is there but the person expects the bit of reality it pertains to to be of deeper significance that the stuff that was given to him/her. So this function presents a question, a problem. I'm back at go.

The other types would take me a similar amount of effort to get into.

* I do not mean to imply that a perspective of this kind does not have specifications; that would be non-sensical... The difference between perspective and object is difficult to put into words, but not too difficult to grasp intuitively. A way to understand: to know an object is to excercise reason on one's observations. Knowledge of a perspective is immediate. In socionics: Static (behind the screens) Perception must be Creating (complex, constructed from multiple observations) to be Limiting (known singled out). Dynamic (face value) Perception must be Accepting (simple, pertaining to one observation) to be Limiting (known singled out).

RSV3
11-25-2008, 03:02 AM
Obviously.



Yeah, those, and no, not something entirely different. I'd like to emphasize that Accepting and Producing are about as misleading names as can be devised for them and in their current form only make sense in a very, very restricted context (apperantly one in which people are seen as transmitters and receptors of information...). If I had a say I'd call them "simple" and "complex" respectively. I sail on conventions when it prevents me from getting ostracized completely, though.



Sure. But as high as the level of abstraction is you're asking something very difficult of me. I can only give part of an answer.

First of all the background:
Static + Accepting makes Empowering
Dynamic + Creating makes Empowering
Static + Creating makes Limiting
Dynamic + Accepting makes Limiting

Descriptions of each are in the thread above.

The easiest of the types you asked about to understand is the ENTp.

ENTp's Ego Block: Empowering Static Intuition (empNe), Limiting Static Thinking (limTi).
The Ne of the ENTp is all about ranging over ways of understanding things. The ENTp litterally sees thousands of ways his observations can be combined into sensible "ideas". He doesn't want to limit himself, though. Each of the ideas is given the same attention; none are singled out. Ideas are "transient", "underdetermined of form" to ENTps and each individual idea is simply "arbitrary", "contingent" (hence why they love to cite alternatives when an INTj presents his singled out view). The Ti of an ENTp on the other hand is concerned with singling out an answer. Many of the possible ways he can fit things together are bound to have things in common, and when something is common between all ideas within a certain context, the ENTp locks it down as a fact. What you get is: a person who finds out the answer quicker than everyone else using his imagination.

Delve a bit deeper, though, and you get at the ENTp's Super-ID block, where s/he is the same as an ISFp except "weak":
ENTp's Super-ID Block: Limiting Dynamic Sensing (limSi), Empowering Dynamic Feeling (empFe)
What was it that triggered the imagination of the ENTp in the first place? This is where the "dynamic" functions come into play. Like I said "dynamic" functions are the functions of direct observation and direct registering of language. Since Si is Sensing what we're concerned with here is not something abstract but very concrete. Point at something and there it is. That there, not something else. Si can concern anything from a perceived picture to a sound heard from a first person perspective (though not objects themselves that have real life specifications; always the perspective from which objects are seen*). The fact that the ENTp is weak in this block means he doesn't pay much attention to how the sounds and pictures are placed in a sequence or graph. This he largely ignores (the ISFp knows better; she'll tell you all the details of a film after recognizing a single image of it). He doesn't navigate by them, but they are significant to him. How? Well, in that this stuff is exactly the stuff that he is trying to organize when he ranges over ideas. His ideas are simply combinations of these perspectives: this sound goes with this picture, this word with that film - and what do you get - there's your idea; an association network. The fact that empNe and limSi form an Accepting axis with the Dynamic bit being Limiting and the Static bit being Empowering, means that this single observed perspective creates an explosion of associations. This is what Accepting function axes do. The person has no questions about the stuff that was given at face value; s/he simply accepts that bit and doesn't worry about it. S/he does form tons of associations as to what happened behind the screens that brought the percept about.
I'm left with one function to explain: Creating Empowering Fe; a Dynamic Judging function. Remember that I spoke about the ENTp trying to single out an answer earlier. Fe concerns the social/emotional problem that the ENTp was trying to solve in the first place. As an Empowering Dynamic function, Creating Fe is a function of wonder and curiosity. It's something that is there but the person expects the bit of reality it pertains to to be of deeper significance that the stuff that was given to him/her. So this function presents a question, a problem. I'm back at go.

The other types would take me a similar amount of effort to get into.

* I do not mean to imply that a perspective of this kind does not have specifications; that would be non-sensical... The difference between perspective and object is difficult to put into words, but not too difficult to grasp intuitively. A way to understand: to know an object is to excercise reason on one's observations. Knowledge of a perspective is immediate. In socionics: Static (behind the screens) Perception must be Creating (complex, constructed from multiple observations) to be Limiting (known singled out). Dynamic (face value) Perception must be Accepting (simple, pertaining to one observation) to be Limiting (known singled out).

Thanks. That helped to clarify things.

BandD
11-25-2008, 10:39 AM
Too simplified. Once you have the opposite, you can give it to others. Ie, being around tough people sooner or later is only gonna make you have a tougher skin yourself. That's a good building block for people just starting relationships though. But then it gets complicated fast.

krieger
11-29-2008, 01:59 PM
Too simplified

I don't get it. You want my writings to be MORE complicated? Am I not trying hard enough?

INTj (also applies to ESFj with a different focus):
Accepting/Empowering Ti: cartesian doubt. The sense that each constatated fact can be linked to an infinite variety of interpretations such that each individual interpretation is merely arbitrary and of no absolute significance. Reduction of matters of truth to matters of proof. The ability to take a certain standpoint for the sake of it's illocutionary use. Self-posession.
Creating/Limiting Ne: trancendental aesthetics. The thorough studying of ideas, not satisfied with their simple evaluation but with their significance and use. Chiseling and perfecting of ideas with the aim of making them maximally suited to their purpose. An interest in ideas for their own sake, tempered by the belief that some ideas are better than others. The desire to find a way of formulating the problem in light of which the required answers are trivialties.
Accepting/Limiting Fe: naive hedonism. The aim of all human action is to maximize happiness and minimize pain in the direct observable situation. If systems of morality cause harm in practice they will be discarded, overridden, no matter how well thought through. Moral flexibility; the checking of moral teachings against reality by seeing if they really help the world along.
Creating/Empowering Si: ideosyncratic referencing. In communication people use whatever words and terms get the job of getting a point across done. Terms rarely have meanings that are set in stone. The aim in communication is to find out what a person is getting at, and doing so is never a matter of litteral interpretation.

What is a type?

A type is a perceptual bias. It is also a dogma as to how the world outside of us works. A belief as to what one can and can not predict and how one goes about doing so.

It is a naive thing to think that any of these dogmas are any more right than the others. They are dogmas after all. At best they are internally consistent, and useful. Strictly speaking, all types are wrong. Usually there exist external institutionalizations of the dogmas that each of the types hold, though, and within certain climates it is often perfectly acceptable to think in right/wrong terms because these institutionalized dogmas are collectively acknowledged.

The type is strongly linked to the notion of inductive thought. It is a well established fact in philosophy that induction is not a failsafe mechanism. Yet people induce frequently through their lives and seem to have some sort of belief that their inductions are valid despite that they are logically not so. Why? I say this is where the type-dogma comes in. A personality allows a person to form the necessary dogmatic beliefs to perform inductions. To top things off, the inductions are in fact succesful in more cases than chance would imply. This is due to the type's internal consistency. The type-mechanism is not random, it is constantly being corrected by new observations and maintained by a complex memory system where possible is sharply divided from impossible. We are, of course, talking about internal, dogmatic possibility/impossibility, but these notions correspond to real possibility and impossibility to the extent that the inductive learning mechanism that produced them was properly trained. Despite all this, though, the type-mechanism, like induction, like all things human, is not failsafe. It produces guesses. Good, educated ones at best, but guesses still.

1981slater
11-29-2008, 03:03 PM
Process type: "Let's have a beer!"
Result type: "I don't like beer at all"
Process type: "It's not about the beer, it's about socializing and having fun"
Result type: "I don't need to do so, I've fucked my GF two hours ago"
Process type: "You are fired, Mr Boredom!!"

krieger
12-06-2008, 11:54 PM
A very simple way of fitting all of cognition into a single principle, is to say that all cognition is ultimately a matter of prediction. Where a primitive organism adapts to the environment by reacting to changes in the environment that previously occurred, a cognition capable organism adapts to changes that will occur in the future. The key mechanism in doing so, is prediction: the inference of future changes from regularities in past ones.

Two main forms of prediction can be isolated:
The first is the kind of prediction where a cognizant being predicts a future experience from past ones. The question asked is: "what will next happen to me". The attitude is one of helplessness, vulnerability, reaction.
The second is the kind of prediction where a cognizant being predicts what it will find when it looks in a certain place or undertakes a certain action. The question asked here is: "what can I do, and what are consequences of doing it." The attitude is one of capability, power, instigation.

The former kind of prediction is linked to the Dynamic types in socionics. The latter to the Static types.

krieger
12-07-2008, 12:04 AM
deleted due to change in views

krieger
12-07-2008, 12:24 AM
On clubs, quadras and function axes...

Already shown by user Smilingeyes:
T = socially closed, external
S = socially open, external
F = socially open, internal
N = socially closed, internal

(interpretation: external = much contact, much specific information, confrontative behavior; internal = opposite)

NT = maximum of socially closed
ST = maximum of external
SF = maximum of socially open
NF = maximum of internal

What was never revealed in as much detail but still implicit in Smilingeyes' writings:
NT = maximally increasing in external
ST = maximally increasing in socially open
SF = maximally increasing in internal
NF = maximally increasing in socially closed

This should tell you why NTs often appear much, much tougher that STs do. The STs are trying to increase the level of cooperation. The NTs are maximally uncooperative AND pointedly trying to create conditions of toughness and confrontation.

I like to think of the NF club as the club that is social enough to consider offers of cooperation, but due to their increasing social closedness inevitably comes to reject these.

--- this stuff is experimental... concrete and abstract definitely exist but it isn't clear wether the "concrete turns into abstract" interpretation holds water.

FDG
12-07-2008, 06:05 AM
Conscientiousness: Affirmed by Serious, Feeling, Resolute and Dynamic.


Why Dynamic?

(my observation is, that the two most coscentious types are ISFJ and ENFJ, so I had personally deduced it was affirmed by feeling, resolute, negativism. Yes they do also match your classification since ENFJ is F-R-D and ISFJ S-F-R, but I thought the core cause was negativism)

krieger
12-07-2008, 12:05 PM
deleted due to change in views

FDG
12-07-2008, 12:24 PM
That's a very nice explanation, I agree with almost everything. Kudos for your investigations, really.

What I still disagree with, is the importance of positivism and negativism over coscentiousness; it might be a volatile trait, but I do not think this also means weak. Trying to extend the reasoning on the same fashion of your definitions: a person that feels that he is limited by its environment will dedicate more time to the agreed-upon demands placed on them. Negativists are said to more easily drop things rather than take upon them new ones. One consequence of this is that they will tend to be maximally coscentious at the tasks they have choosen to tackle. Given that the structure of this reasoning is similar to the one used by you for dynamic, I would place it at least on par with it in terms of importance.
Of course, we have to be careful to characterize accurately negativism and postivism, so an INTj using accepting Ti would be positivist.

krieger
12-07-2008, 12:53 PM
That does make sense. Like I said, Negativism could very well be related. It is just weaker than things like Static/Dynamic (extremely strong), Merry/Serious (extremely strong) and Thinking/Feeling (again, extremely strong). It's got quite something to compete with. (talking about strength apart from context here)

I can spot Static/Dynamic, Merry/Serious and Thinking/Feeling from a distance in a person. Just a few glimpses and I'll know it. Negativism/Positivism, I often don't "see" at all.


Of course, we have to be careful to characterize accurately negativism and postivism, so an INTj using accepting Ti would be positivist.

I disagree. An INTj is always Negativist. To call it something else is to confuse terminology. I do not support smilingeyes' interpretation of function use where an INTj can behave like IxTj when it focusses on the T function.

(what you seem to be getting at is that Accepting Ti is an Empowering function; on a related note, this combination of Merry + Empowering does make Accepting Ti one of the least conscientious functions when looked at in isolation)

krieger
12-20-2008, 02:31 PM
On the difference between NT types, with a focus on rational functions.....

Ti and Fe function as an axis. Any sort of thinking that involves Ti, also tacitly involves Fe. Likewise Fi and Te form an axis and operate jointly whenever these are used.

Ti/Fe thinking starts with identifying a need (Fe), which then invites a pragmatic attitude (Ti). The person feels that a certain thing must happen and then sets out to get it done.
Fi/Te thinking starts with identifying a factual condition (Te), which then invites a moral attitude (Fi). The person notices that a certain condition exists and cannot be gotten around, and that the moral thing to do is to take responsive action.

INTj and ENTp have different Ti functions. INTj Ti is Empowering, while ENTp Ti is Limiting. Likewise the Fe functions of the duals of these types are different. The INTj resonds to the Limiting Fe of the ESFj, while the ENTp responds to the Empowering Fe of the ISFp.

Limiting Fe is a very robust kind of need. A need that is easily satisfied. It is not picky.
Empowering Fe is a very delicate kind of need. A need that takes a specific kind of reaction that can not be identified simply by looking at it from one perspective. It demands to be studied indepth so that the right reaction to it found after long deliberation.

The INTj's Empowering Ti responds to the robust needs of Limiting Fe. It is a function of freedom and arbitrarity, as from simply looking at the need the INTj can identify a million of proper reactions.
The ENTp's Limiting Ti responds to the delicate needs of Empowering Fe. This is a faction of restriction. It can not react arbitrarily but it needs to first pay attention to find the one proper reaction. It must study longer to find the answer.

Accepting Ti/Fe concerns a form of Ti pragmatic attitude that seeks to satisfy one Fe need at a time. Any identified need is reacted to at once, since the goal is not to satify multiple ones.
Creating Ti/Fe concerns a form of Ti pragmatic attitude that seeks to satisfy many Fe needs at a time. A single identified need is not enough to invite a reaction. The person witholds judgment until it is in a position to fulfil multiple needs.

Accepting Ti/Fe is all about "just do something good".
Creating Ti/Fe is all about "doing just the right thing".

The remaining part of the difference between INTj and ENTp consists in the difference in their perceiving functions. The attitudes are pretty much inversed when we get to those, as Limiting/Empowering is inversed in the perceiving functions...

If I haven't been clear on this:
Accepting/Creating is a property of function axes, not functions themselves. To use Accepting/Creating as a descriptor of functions is bad use of terminology. Limiting/Empowering are better used here, or best used in conjunction with Accepting/Creating (as in Accepting/Empowering Ti, Creating/Limiting Ne, etc).

krieger
12-20-2008, 03:24 PM
The above can be generalized to all Rational and Irrational types:
Rationals are concerned with contribution. They want to "just do something good".
Irrationals are concerned with correction. They want to "do just the right thing".

Limiting Pe is an invention that does many "simply good" things at the time.

Rick
12-20-2008, 03:48 PM
Nice work. Actually, the official terms are "accepting/producing", not "creating". But I agree that those terms are not very good. They reflect an earlier perception of the functions that has been downplayed since Augusta, but still holds at least a bit of merit.

krieger
12-26-2008, 02:40 PM
When a judging function is used to correct a certain result, there is a difference in how precisely the fault being corrected is identified.

A "thinking" correction mostly involves judgments of the kind: "the whole thing doesn't match X, therefore it is wrong."

A "feeling" correction mostly involves judgments of the kind: "this thing doesn't match X in respect Y, therefore it is wrong in respect Y."

Feeling function distinctions, when used as paths from an imperfect state to a gradually improving one, involve a path with very small intermediate changes.

krieger
12-26-2008, 02:55 PM
The Strong Accepting function is usually refered to as the Base function. It is said to be the main source of both a person's strength and his/her most stubborn convictions.

Personally I find it interesting to look at the Dynamic Valued Accepting function for an insight in the person's deepest motivations. Since this function is the same for any two duals, this shows you how it is that duals have such similar outlooks on life, and such similar motivations.

For INTj, for example, this function is Accepting/Limiting Fe: a simple, unpretentious and safe way of judging wether a certain thing that is known in an immediate way (a subjective percept; something one is in direct contact with, not sepparated from; not needing a process of indirect inference to access; also by virtue of being known without inference, flat, face-value information) satisfies one's needs and expectations.

What this amounts to, is that the smallest building blocks of an INTj's thinking, are thoughts along the lines of: "this is good", "this needs to be better in respect X", "no, change it like that", etc.

krieger
12-26-2008, 03:44 PM
A common assuption in socionics is that Introverts are the people that are focussed on their inner world, whereas Extroverts are the people that are focussed on the outer world.

Fundamental as this principle is, I feel I should challenge, or at least doubt it. Perhaps it is only part right and needs to be adjusted in the respects in which it isn't.

"Inner world" mostly seems to refer to the Dynamic functions: those things that are known in an immediate way. Flat, face-value information. Images, words, sentences; those things that our view of the world is constructed from.

"Outer world" refers to the Static functions: the things existing behind the screens that can only be understood as constructions built out of the previously mentioned kind of information.

This in mind, it initially seems reasonable to suppose that Statics are concerned with the "outer world", whereas Dynamics are concerned with the "inner world"... But there is more to explore about the issue.

*to be continued*

...

FDG
12-26-2008, 07:37 PM
The Strong Accepting function is usually refered to as the Base function. It is said to be the main source of both a person's strength and his/her most stubborn convictions.

Personally I find it interesting to look at the Dynamic Valued Accepting function for an insight in the person's deepest motivations. Since this function is the same for any two duals, this shows you how it is that duals have such similar outlooks on life, and such similar motivations.


Great insight!:O