PDA

View Full Version : Setting it Straight



Steve
06-04-2008, 08:37 PM
There seems to be an issue as to how some people here view functions. But the issue is that regardless of what model is used, all definitions of the functions are supposedly based off of the same fundamental concepts - the information elements. These information elements as they relate to the functions were originally put together by Aushra, who blended Carl Jung's functions and Antoni Kepinski's information metabolism. The functions are ways of experiencing reality - this is something that are supposed to remain the same no-matter what model you use.

Strrrng, I and a few others who supposedly have "different" understandings than the majority of the 16types, speak from an information element perspective - the essence of socionics itself. Aushra, the founder of so called "classical socionics" devised these information elements herself. Unfortuantely Model A has a lot of shortcomings, including the idea that a person can/will directly experience functions outside of their quadra. This is a total contradiction with the fundamentals of socionics, because Aushra herself incorporated the idea of information metabolism from Kepinsky, who discussed the idea of metabolism as it related to cells. One of the most fundamental principles was that there were certain elements that were beneficial to the cell and promoted healthy functioning, while others interfered and slowed down healthy normal functioning. This is exactly the case with socionics information elements.


Augusta viewed the psyche as a structure that continually perceives and selects relevant information from its environment and conveys information back to its environment at the same time.

For each type there are certain information elements that provide healthy feedback cycles and normal functioning (the "relevant" information), while other elements/information directly interfere and put strain on the person's natural information processing. Saying that I, as an ENTp use Te is like trying to put diesel fuel in a car that is designed for unleaded premium. It just doesn't work. It causes the engine to strain and function poorly and unhealthily. Te to me lacks inherent structure and seems to have no base whatsoever - it's ungrounded to me. Whenever I encounter Te expression, I always need to translate it into my own language and find an inherent link between the nodes of Te strolling on the edge.

A person can/will never experience non-quadra functions directly because they simply are detrimental to a person's natural information processing - the person will only react to them.

That's it - end of story. That is a fundamental principle of socionics that Aushra herself incorporated from Kepinski - so I'd be entertained to see it called "non-classical". If Model A actually believes that you "work to get better at" some non-quadra functions, or that you can actually experience and perform your "Id" functions or whatever, then it needs to be trashed. It just doesn't work.

thehotelambush
06-04-2008, 09:01 PM
Are you able to remember your own age without somebody telling you? If so, you are using Te.

Steve
06-04-2008, 09:09 PM
lol tell me ur not serious

strrrng
06-04-2008, 09:11 PM
Are you able to remember your own age without somebody telling you? If so, you are using Te.

wow lol. So, Te is remembering facts? NO. Functions aren't about the actions which a person performs; they are about the method by which they perform the act. Show a fact to a Ti person and he will incorporate it into his internal structure.

Steve
06-04-2008, 09:21 PM
I think you inject some words here that are fairly irrelevant.

"experience and perform"
"work to get better at"

I'm not sure these are used in the proper context or meaningfulness.

People on here have made the very claim that your "Role Function" is something you try to get better at, and have tried to cite examples of people supposedly using their id functions.

bg
06-04-2008, 09:28 PM
Te is about what works
Si is about working as little as possible

Steve
06-04-2008, 09:40 PM
Te is about what works
Si is about working as little as possible

lol

JuJu
06-04-2008, 09:49 PM
There seems to be an issue as to how some people here view functions. But the issue is that regardless of what model is used, all definitions of the functions are supposedly based off of the same fundamental concepts - the information elements.

I appreciate you explaining this. :) I always thought that you placed emphasis on subtypes to help you type people more accurately...

If what you posted is your understanding of Socionics, I have a critique of it, which I hope you'll take in the spirit that it's intended, (constructive.)

To me, it seems that you're placing an awful lot of emphasis on the most obtuse, most theoretically weak (pseudo-science-y) characteristic of Socionics, i.e. the theoretical modeling of information elements.

The most compelling, useful characteristic of Socionics is this: there are identifiable types of people, (who can be described as XXXx;) and the relationships between these types of people can be identified as a type of interaction (intertype relations,) which can be accurately described and even to a degree, understood.

The theoretical modeling of information elements should serve the aim of Socionics' most compelling, useful characteristics... And this is not a huge bone of contention, but nonetheless: your post seems to place unnecessary emphasis/attention on the Info elements (which are models,) to the detriment of reality. For example, let's examine a quote:


"Unfortuantely Model A has a lot of shortcomings, including the idea that a person can/will directly experience functions outside of their quadra."

I'm not sure whether this came out the way that you intended, so I guess I'll just ask that you clarify it before I address it thoroughly... In brief though, this connotes (actually, at the end of your post, you straight-up denote,) that one cannot receive positive benefits from IM elements other than those valued by one's quadra... In other words, only four elements can potentially benefit each individual, whereas the other four will reap effects that are always somehow negative.

This understanding ignores reality in favor of a too literal interpretation of a theoretical model that is, at very best, flawed... As a ENFp, Fe is not one of my quadra values--to say that Fe cannot somehow benefit a ENFp is pretty inaccurate, I believe... Beyond that, your understanding isn't a hell of a lot different--it just places what some, I imagine, would consider to be unnecessary emphasis on the IM elements, to the detriment of the gestalt of the theory

No personal offense intended at all... I like you dude. Peace.

strrrng
06-04-2008, 09:59 PM
Te is about what works
Si is about working as little as possible

loll

thehotelambush
06-04-2008, 11:47 PM
wow lol. So, Te is remembering facts? NO. Functions aren't about the actions which a person performs; they are about the method by which they perform the act.

You're right, functions are about this, but information elements are not.


Show a fact to a Ti person and he will incorporate it into his internal structure.

Again, everybody has a belief system, whether they "are" Ti or not.

xyz
06-05-2008, 12:19 AM
Te is about what works
Si is about working as little as possible

give this man a prize!

Steve
06-05-2008, 08:12 PM
I appreciate you explaining this. :) I always thought that you placed emphasis on subtypes to help you type people more accurately...

If what you posted is your understanding of Socionics, I have a critique of it, which I hope you'll take in the spirit that it's intended, (constructive.)

To me, it seems that you're placing an awful lot of emphasis on the most obtuse, most theoretically weak (pseudo-science-y) characteristic of Socionics, i.e. the theoretical modeling of information elements.

The most compelling, useful characteristic of Socionics is this: there are identifiable types of people, (who can be described as XXXx;) and the relationships between these types of people can be identified as a type of interaction (intertype relations,) which can be accurately described and even to a degree, understood.

The theoretical modeling of information elements should serve the aim of Socionics' most compelling, useful characteristics... And this is not a huge bone of contention, but nonetheless: your post seems to place unnecessary emphasis/attention on the Info elements (which are models,) to the detriment of reality. For example, let's examine a quote:



I'm not sure whether this came out the way that you intended, so I guess I'll just ask that you clarify it before I address it thoroughly... In brief though, this connotes (actually, at the end of your post, you straight-up denote,) that one cannot receive positive benefits from IM elements other than those valued by one's quadra... In other words, only four elements can potentially benefit each individual, whereas the other four will reap effects that are always somehow negative.

This understanding ignores reality in favor of a too literal interpretation of a theoretical model that is, at very best, flawed... As a ENFp, Fe is not one of my quadra values--to say that Fe cannot somehow benefit a ENFp is pretty inaccurate, I believe... Beyond that, your understanding isn't a hell of a lot different--it just places what some, I imagine, would consider to be unnecessary emphasis on the IM elements, to the detriment of the gestalt of the theory

No personal offense intended at all... I like you dude. Peace.

None taken - it's all good bro :)

Yes, the argument/logic I presented was based on theory, but that's because there really isn't a real justification as to why the information elements are the way they are concretely.

I do only believe that there are four aspects to SOCIONICS reality - T, N, S, F. Each person has one of each, and a specific pair of either Ti/Fe or Te/Fi, and Ne/Si or Ni/Se. Each functional pair is the way it is because Ti is the opposite of Fe (External field statics vs Internal Object Dynamics), and Ne the opposite of Si (Internal Static Objects vs External Field Dynamics) etc. Things in the universe come in pairs, in dual-opposites. Just like magnets, opposites attract (and generally the case with most living creatures and gender attraction).

Things that are too similar get rejected and there are repulsive forces. With me, I look at static objects internally (Ne), and when there's Se thrown at me (external static objects), it's like trying to fill the same static object space in my mind with something that doesn't belong - and it feels foreign and I have a natural repulsion to it.

I place so much emphasis on the information elements because they are not simply a theoretical concept; they are very real and observable in people. For example, even in your own writing you can see a Te way of processing and articulating T-ish stuff:


I'm not sure whether this came out the way that you intended, so I guess I'll just ask that you clarify it before I address it thoroughly... In brief though, this connotes (actually, at the end of your post, you straight-up denote,) that one cannot receive positive benefits from IM elements other than those valued by one's quadra... In other words, only four elements can potentially benefit each individual, whereas the other four will reap effects that are always somehow negative.

The way you make a point takes an idea and rolls it along forward, extracting and evolving, and that's the way Te works (External Dynamic Objects - rolling from point to point kind of in a moving line). This is particularly evident in Expat's writing.

Whereas my writing has a much more outward expansive quality to it:


There seems to be an issue as to how some people here view functions. But the issue is that regardless of what model is used, all definitions of the functions are supposedly based off of the same fundamental concepts - the information elements. These information elements as they relate to the functions were originally put together by Aushra, who blended Carl Jung's functions and Antoni Kepinski's information metabolism. The functions are ways of experiencing reality - this is something that are supposed to remain the same no-matter what model you use.

The concept of Ti (External Field Statics) fits my expression perfectly. I start with a foundation, then build on top of it and expand outward, usually referring back to the original base.

Also check out some of Thomas Jefferson's (Ti) writing versus that of George Washington (Te). You'll notice a clear difference and I think one will seem easier to read and more natural to you while the other seems foreign and requires more effort to process.

Steve
06-05-2008, 08:25 PM
Here's a letter of Thomas Jefferson's:


MONTICELLO, February 14, 1824.

DEAR SIR, -- I have to thank you for the copy of Colonel Taylor's New Views of the Constitution and shall read them with the satisfaction and edification which I have ever derived from whatever he has written. But I fear it is the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Those who formerly usurped the name of federalists, which, in fact, they never were, have now openly abandoned it, and are as openly marching by the road of construction, in a direct line to that consolidation which was always their real object. They, almost to a man, are in possession of one branch of the government, and appear to be very strong in yours. The three great questions of amendment now before you, will give the measure of their strength. I mean, 1st, the limitation of the term of the Presidential service; 2d, the placing the choice of President effectually in the hands of the people; 3d, the giving to Congress the power of internal improvement, on condition that each State's federal proportion of the moneys so expended, shall be employed within the State. The friends of consolidation would rather take these powers by construction than accept them by direct investiture from the States.

Yet, as to internal improvement particularly, there is probably not a State in the Union which would not grant the power on the condition proposed, or which would grant it without that. The best general key for the solution of questions of power between our governments, is the fact that "every foreign and federal power is given to the federal government, and to the States every power purely domestic." I recollect but one instance of control vested in the federal, over the State authorities, in a matter purely domestic, which is that of metallic tenders. The federal is, in truth, our foreign government, which department alone is taken from the sovereignty of the separate States.

The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation, until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy. Here it will be by large fragments breaking off, and refusing re-union but on condition of amendment, or perhaps permanently. If I can see these three great amendments prevail, I shall consider it as a renewed extension of the term of our lease, shall live in more confidence, and die in more hope. And I do trust that the republican mass, which Colonel Taylor justly says is the real federal one, is still strong enough to carry these truly federo- republican amendments. With my prayers for the issue, accept my friendly and respectful salutations.

Here's one of Washington's Letters:


To Governor George Clinton
Head Quarters, Valley Forge, February 16, 1778

Dear Sir: It is with great reluctance, I trouble you on a subject, which does not fall within your province; but it is a subject that occasions me more distress, than I have felt, since the commencement of the war; and which loudly demands the most zealous exertions of every person of weight and authority, who is interested in the success of our affairs. I mean the present dreadful situation of the army for want of provisions, and the miserable prospects before us, with respect to futurity. It is more alarming than you will probably conceive, for, to form a just idea, it were necessary to be on the spot. For some days past, there has been little less, than a famine in camp. A part of the army has been a week, without any kind of flesh, and the rest for three or four days. Naked and starving as they are, we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of the soldiery, that they have not been ere this excited by their sufferings, to a general mutiny or dispersion. Strong symptoms, however, discontent have appeared in particular instances; and nothing but the most acitive efforts every where can long avert so shocking a catastrophe.

Our present sufferings are not all. There is no foundation laid for any adequate relief hereafter. All the magazines provided in the States of New Jersey, Pensylvania, Delaware and Maryland, and all the immediate additional supplies they seem capable of affording, will not be sufficient to support the army more than a month longer, if so long. Very little has been done to the Eastward, and as little to the Southward; and whatever we have a right to expect from those quarters, must necessarily be very remote; and is indeed more precarious, than could be wished. When the forementioned supplies are exhausted, what a terrible crisis must ensue, unless all the energy of the Continent is exerted to provide a timely remedy?

Impressed with this idea, I am, on my part, putting every engine to work, that I can possibly think of, to prevent the fatal consequences, we have so great a reason to apprehend. I am calling upon all those, whose stations and influence enable them to contribute their aid upons so important an occasion; and from your well known zeal, I expect every thing within the compass of your power, and that the abilities and resources of the state over which you preside, will admit. I am sensible of the disadvantages it labours under, from having been so long the scene of war, and that it must be exceedingly drained by the great demands to which it has been subject. But, tho' you may not be able to contribute materially to our relief, you can perhaps do something towards it; and any assistance, however trifling in itself, will be of great moment at so critical a juncture, and will conduce to keeping the army together till the Commissary's department can be put upon a better footing, and effectual measures concerted to secure a permanent and competent supply. What methods you can take, you will be the best judge of; but, if you can devise any means to procure a quantity of cattle, or other kind of flesh, for the use of this army, to be at camp in the course of a month, you will render a most essential service to the common cause. I have the honor etc.

There's a clear difference. As I was reading it just now Washington's writing has a striking resemblance to Expat's. Jefferson's actually reminds me of Carl Jung's - they both may be Ni INFp, not positive though, but Jefferson is definitely Ti.

With Jefferson you can see his immersion within a field (try imagining that, and it'll make sense). He has this attachment and it's like the idea he's getting at is literally surrounding him, whereas with Washington things seem neatly wrapped up into trimmed idea balls that roll along, one into the next, as if he's looking AT what he's conveying, watching it evolve over time, as opposed to looking THROUGH something that grows outward.

The information elements are very real and observable in people, but of course they're abstract things. However just because it's abstract doesn't mean it's any less real. Is loving a person any less real than being able to tell that they're tall or have brown hair?

Suomea
06-05-2008, 08:43 PM
....

Steve
06-05-2008, 09:55 PM
After meeting you, I would have probably typed you as an INTj. You specifically have pretty stable Ti and an extreme preference for it over Te. You also seem to have a Si HA compared with a Fe hidden agenda. These were just my observations in relation to myself though.

However, according to "Ashton"'s model, which you go by, you would attribute these characteristics to you being a Ti subtype of ENTp. It's a fair claim, and very well might be possible, but in any event your functions seem to be set up much more like a Model A INTj than a Model A ENTp. That being the case I wouldn't mind hearing you create a similar diesel fuel argument for your Ne and Ni.

In terms of myself I don't feel like I have a problem with Te like you say you do. My Ni on the other hand very well may act similar to that.... on the day you weren't there for the Socionic's get together I was given a Ni task which I completely translated to Ne, and semi ignored the Ni purpose of it.

Regarding your impressions of me - an important thing to take into account is my being a 6w5 enneagram. 6w5s come off as much more introspective than do 6w7s or even 3s (It's important to take in all the factors that can affect a person, socionics is just one aspect). However even though I came across as reserved in one particular social context (meeting random people from an online forum lol), once you get to know me I'm much more outgoing and playfully engaging. I just need to form a connection. Also, my energy flow is extremely outwardly focused and am much more aware of what's going on outside of me than an introvert would be. Compare me to someone like Mysticsonic, Ms. Kensington, or Hitta who are Ti INTj and there's a clear difference. Also, INTjs are much more controlled and even somewhat rigid in the extreme, whereas I as a direction-less EP am searching for that dynamic flow I can ride on to guide me, and use my Ne and Ti to try to find and create that flow. Yes, I am probably more introspective than other Ti ENTps even, but that's a personality thing.

With Fe, I crave it and am extremely energized by it. I literally need it as a constant gauge as to where things stand, especially in interpersonal contexts, and of course I am readily aware of the moods that exist - I can recognize and pick up Fe quite adeptly, since I need it to truly feel alive.

In terms of my experience with Ni: When Ni people say things I don't personally have a huge issue with it, but I still can't really let it sit in it's raw form. I'm pretty much the way you described for yourself. When an Ni person gives an impression, it's very general and seemingly suspended to me. I always find myself trying to find an aspect of it to latch onto and find a context within my experience to draw parallels to. I do this a lot when I talk with Strrrng. He'll describe an impression he has, and I'll always try to find an external context to liken it to using Ne.

I think you'd have the same issue with Te, I just don't think you know exactly what Te is. Te /= practicality, business logic, etc.

While I don't know the exact "Ni task" you were referring to, I don't really think there are "Ni tasks" or "Ne tasks" or "Te tasks" etc. Certain tasks can however be geared to illustrate how someone would go about doing them differently, which can indicate their functional usage, which may be what you're talking about.

strrrng
06-05-2008, 10:48 PM
I do only believe that there are four aspects to SOCIONICS reality - T, N, S, F. Each person has one of each, and a specific pair of either Ti/Fe or Te/Fi, and Ne/Si or Ni/Se. Each functional pair is the way it is because Ti is the opposite of Fe (External field statics vs Internal Object Dynamics), and Ne the opposite of Si (Internal Static Objects vs External Field Dynamics) etc. Things in the universe come in pairs, in dual-opposites. Just like magnets, opposites attract (and generally the case with most living creatures and gender attraction).

Exactly.

thehotelambush
06-06-2008, 12:18 AM
I do only believe that there are four aspects to SOCIONICS reality - T, N, S, F. Each person has one of each, and a specific pair of either Ti/Fe or Te/Fi, and Ne/Si or Ni/Se. Each functional pair is the way it is because Ti is the opposite of Fe (External field statics vs Internal Object Dynamics), and Ne the opposite of Si (Internal Static Objects vs External Field Dynamics) etc.

The existence of derived dichotomies makes this view untenable - any function can be seen as the "opposite" of any other. We could just as easily use Alpha/Gamma, Beta/Delta, and External/Internal as the basic dichotomies. Then Ti (Alpha Beta External) would be the opposite of Fi (Gamma Delta Internal).


Things that are too similar get rejected and there are repulsive forces. With me, I look at static objects internally (Ne), and when there's Se thrown at me (external static objects), it's like trying to fill the same static object space in my mind with something that doesn't belong - and it feels foreign and I have a natural repulsion to it.

Repulsion is not the same as absence; I agree that the two aspects repel each other, but that doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive - except in a strictly limited sense.


The way you make a point takes an idea and rolls it along forward, extracting and evolving, and that's the way Te works (External Dynamic Objects - rolling from point to point kind of in a moving line). This is particularly evident in Expat's writing.

I think this could have something to do with Ni too.

Steve
06-06-2008, 02:19 AM
The existence of derived dichotomies makes this view untenable - any function can be seen as the "opposite" of any other. We could just as easily use Alpha/Gamma, Beta/Delta, and External/Internal as the basic dichotomies. Then Ti (Alpha Beta External) would be the opposite of Fi (Gamma Delta Internal).

No they're not opposites because Ti and Fi are both static fields. They resemble each other so closely that where they differ (external vs internal) causes them to "compete" for the same space.


Repulsion is not the same as absence; I agree that the two aspects repel each other, but that doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive - except in a strictly limited sense.

My point is that certain information element combinations (functions) repel other combinations, and that one will be healthy for a person's information processing and the other will not. It's like giving a person with AB- blood AB+ blood. The two are so similar but differ by the one antigen, and that makes the difference as to whether it will harm the person or if the body will reject it or not.

thehotelambush
06-06-2008, 02:21 AM
No they're not opposites because Ti and Fi are both static fields. They resemble each other so closely that where they differ (external vs internal) causes them to "compete" for the same space.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Diana
06-06-2008, 03:06 AM
.

Steve
06-06-2008, 03:13 AM
Not this particular letter but others written by Jefferson gave me the strong impression of Fi writing, and I have thought he could have actually been INFj rather than INTj.

Hm, which letters are you referring to, the one's on natural rights and man, and what he says about God?

Just curious what you see as Fi about them.

Ms. Kensington
06-06-2008, 03:34 AM
setting it straight: Steve believes that there is no basis for model a, that is, ordering one's way of processing, element preference, etc. as functions that we're born with. He does however agree that there are differences between people that are both engrained at the cellular level and which invariably produce behaviors that are observable and correctly attributable to the element pairs that a person is born with.

Is that correct?

Diana
06-06-2008, 03:41 AM
.

Steve
06-06-2008, 03:53 AM
setting it straight: Steve believes that there is no basis for model a, that is, ordering one's way of processing, element preference, etc. as functions that we're born with. He does however agree that there are differences between people that are both engrained at the cellular level and which invariably produce behaviors that are observable and correctly attributable to the element pairs that a person is born with.

Is that correct?

I believe that Model A has some inherent defects in the way it views information processing, including the idea that people can experience functions outside of their quadra.

Also I believe that the information elements, while abstract, are quite observable in people, as I demonstrated in the Jefferson and Washington examples, as well as contrasting my own writing to Justin's and even Expat's (indirectly).

Steve
06-06-2008, 03:56 AM
Sadly I don't remember which ones in particular, and no it wasn't the subject matter as much as the soul of it, for lack of a better word. Perhaps some of that can be attributed to the style at the time, but I think there's more to it than just that. I heard myself in his words. . . much the way I sometimes hear myself in Minde's words for example, as though someone else was writing down my thoughts for me the same way I would write them. But I only heard myself when he was voicing some of his most strongly held opinions, the throught process stood out more there. Wish I had kept hold of some examples to share. It was a long time ago.

Ah I see. Personally I can also identify with a lot of his beliefs regarding humanity and the state, but I don't know if that was what you were referring to. I believe he's Ti especially because of the way he communicates.

mikemex
06-06-2008, 07:12 AM
I think socionics is flawed from the begging. It assumes that the understanding of a principle implies the understanding of a system which uses that principle.

For example, the understanding of the operation of an electronic transistor doesn't imply the understanding of the operation of a logical gate and then it doesn't imply the understanding of the operation of a microprocessor. Even if the steps are directly derived from the source, they can't be reduced backwards. It becomes a qualitative change and not simply a quantitative one.

Computers are a good example to illustrate this concept. There is a kind of graphics software called ray tracing. The algorithm is so simple that only a few lines of code are necessary to render a photo realistic scene. However, just because the product was created by a few lines of code it doesn't mean that another computer can take the rendered picture and turn it back to the basic components using the same amount of lines of code. Once rendered the picture becomes a product which is qualitatively different from the code used to generate it.

Ezra
06-06-2008, 08:24 AM
Te is about what works
Si is about working as little as possible

So LSEs are sorted.

thehotelambush
06-06-2008, 08:41 AM
I think socionics is flawed from the begging. It assumes that the understanding of a principle implies the understanding of a system which uses that principle.

For example, the understanding of the operation of an electronic transistor doesn't imply the understanding of the operation of a logical gate and then it doesn't imply the understanding of the operation of a microprocessor. Even if the steps are directly derived from the source, they can't be reduced backwards. It becomes a qualitative change and not simply a quantitative one.

Computers are a good example to illustrate this concept. There is a kind of graphics software called ray tracing. The algorithm is so simple that only a few lines of code are necessary to render a photo realistic scene. However, just because the product was created by a few lines of code it doesn't mean that another computer can take the rendered picture and turn it back to the basic components using the same amount of lines of code. Once rendered the picture becomes a product which is qualitatively different from the code used to generate it.

It's an interesting analogy, but how does it apply to socionics?

JuJu
06-07-2008, 07:08 AM
Steve, I agree with you about everything until you hit the word "including" in this sentence:


I believe that Model A has some inherent defects in the way it views information processing, including the idea that people can experience functions outside of their quadra.

I experience functions outside of my quadra everyday... Crap, is it really 3AM? Alright, this can wait, haha. peace

strrrng
06-07-2008, 07:11 AM
I think socionics is flawed from the begging. It assumes that the understanding of a principle implies the understanding of a system which uses that principle.

right.

JuJu
06-07-2008, 07:46 PM
Can someone convince me that I don't "experience," for example, Fe..? If someone can do that, I can't say I disagree with much of what's been said here.

The gestalt of Socionics theory--that there are 16 identifiable types who function in such ways and have such relationships--is not threatened by the views expressed in this thread about IM elements... (I guess that's why you had to "set it straight" lol.) Essentially, this is arguing over finer points, which is fine, but that's what it is--mountains out of molehills. IMO

Steve--what you're addressing here is useful as a way to discern someone's correct type, i.e. analyzing functional preferences... Yeah, that's good. If ppl did it more, they would become better at typing IMO.

Steve
06-07-2008, 10:14 PM
Can someone convince me that I don't "experience," for example, Fe..? If someone can do that, I can't say I disagree with much of what's been said here.

What exactly is your impression of what Fe is? There's a lot of assumptions that are thrown around on this forum trying to stereotype certain behavior that is considered normal for all people as Fe, thus the misconception. No wonder people have been believing that they experience their non-quadra functions, because a lot of those functions have been defined very poorly. They have been defined as overly specific and concrete behavioral traits that when people see them they say "I do that in my life", then they identify with the function. Heck, I have very strong convictions/morals over certain things, so maybe I'm ENFp instead of ENTp lol ;). Out of the socionics functions, probably Ne and Ti have been defined the best, and even those definitions aren't that great.


Steve--what you're addressing here is useful as a way to discern someone's correct type, i.e. analyzing functional preferences... Yeah, that's good. If ppl did it more, they would become better at typing IMO.

I wish they did lol.

strrrng
06-07-2008, 11:09 PM
What exactly is your impression of what Fe is? There's a lot of assumptions that are thrown around on this forum trying to stereotype certain behavior that is considered normal for all people as Fe, thus the misconception. No wonder people have been believing that they experience their non-quadra functions, because a lot of those functions have been defined very poorly. They have been defined as overly specific and concrete behavioral traits that when people see them they say "I do that in my life", then they identify with the function. Heck, I have very strong convictions/morals over certain things, so maybe I'm ENFp instead of ENTp lol .

Correct. Functions are not behaviors. The reason why you don't directly experience non-quadra functions is simple: it would encroach upon your natural understanding of one of the aspects of reality (N, S, T, F). If I go about my days processing the internal dynamics of objects, why the fuck am I gonna care about the internal statics of fields? It's like buying another car when you already have a perfectly good one (the first person who makes a dumbass claim about "variety" or experiencing life wholly will get bitch-slapped). Quadra functions create a feedback loop and a consummate cycle that would be intensely perturbed if we went about trying to experience the functions that directly conflict with them.


Out of the socionics functions, probably Ne and Ti have been defined the best, and even those definitions aren't that great.

Big surprise, typical Aushra promoting the ENTp's as Gods of the socion (but they still need an ISFp to feed and bathe them!)

thehotelambush
06-08-2008, 12:24 AM
What exactly is your impression of what Fe is? There's a lot of assumptions that are thrown around on this forum trying to stereotype certain behavior that is considered normal for all people as Fe, thus the misconception. No wonder people have been believing that they experience their non-quadra functions, because a lot of those functions have been defined very poorly. They have been defined as overly specific and concrete behavioral traits that when people see them they say "I do that in my life", then they identify with the function. Heck, I have very strong convictions/morals over certain things, so maybe I'm ENFp instead of ENTp lol ;). Out of the socionics functions, probably Ne and Ti have been defined the best, and even those definitions aren't that great.

If we didn't experience four of the eight information elements it would mean that we would fundamentally be experiencing a different reality than people in the opposite quadra. In some limited sense this is true, but information elements are related to very concrete actions and experiences: everyone experiences emotional fluctuations, everyone has fixed relationship patterns - otherwise how could the early socionists, mostly Alpha, have even formulated socionics, which is primarily describing Fi?

Gilly
06-08-2008, 01:13 AM
otherwise how could the early socionists, mostly Alpha, have even formulated socionics, which is primarily describing Fi?

"You mean people have relationships?"

:lol:

Steve
06-08-2008, 02:08 AM
If we didn't experience four of the eight information elements it would mean that we would fundamentally be experiencing a different reality than people in the opposite quadra.

That's quite true. While the "objective" things that exist in reality are the same for all people (we're all living in reality), the way we see it, and the way we interact/experience it personally is quite different than those in our opposite quadra. If you got into a disagreement over something with REAL gammas (which there aren't too many for some reason), you'd experience a strangeness and a foreign-ness/backwardness that you didn't even know existed. You'd think, "How can people function like this?"


In some limited sense this is true, but information elements are related to very concrete actions and experiences: everyone experiences emotional fluctuations, everyone has fixed relationship patterns

Right so I guess that means that emotional fluctuations =/ Fe and fixed relationship patterns =/ Fi ;). I guess it's time to find better ways of describing Fe and Fi.


otherwise how could the early socionists, mostly Alpha, have even formulated socionics, which is primarily describing Fi?

Here's the logic that went through your mind:
-Fi = seeing the relations between people (according to common association)
-Early socionists devised a theory that describes relations between different "types" of people
-Early alpha socionists were Alpha NT (like Aushra)
-Early socionists were using Fi, since they made a theory about "relations" between people
-Alpha NTs can use Fi

The problem with this logic:

There are different WAYS that one can evaluate the nature of relationships between people - Fi is just one way; one lens to view it through.

The Alpha NTs that created socionics took the route of examining personal relationships through an externally defined symmetrical structure (Ti), where you have 16 distinct types with different static "blocs" of functions that differentiate each type. I doubt that this strategy to interpreting relations between people would be the default choice by an Fi dominant type.

thehotelambush
06-08-2008, 02:17 AM
That's quite true. While the "objective" things that exist in reality are the same for all people (we're all living in reality), the way we see it, and the way we interact/experience it personally is quite different than those in our opposite quadra. If you got into a disagreement over something with REAL gammas (which there aren't too many for some reason), you'd experience a strangeness and a foreign-ness/backwardness that you didn't even know existed. You'd think, "How can people function like this?"

Right.

I agree with most of what you're saying; clearly Ti ego types approach Fi differently than Fi ego types. From there it's basically semantics.

JuJu
06-08-2008, 04:28 AM
The reason why you don't directly experience non-quadra functions is simple: it would encroach upon your natural understanding of one of the aspects of reality (N, S, T, F). If I go about my days processing the internal dynamics of objects, why the fuck am I gonna care about the internal statics of fields? It's like buying another car when you already have a perfectly good one (the first person who makes a dumbass claim about "variety" or experiencing life wholly will get bitch-slapped). Quadra functions create a feedback loop and a consummate cycle that would be intensely perturbed if we went about trying to experience the functions that directly conflict with them.

What you’re saying is that I convert my understanding of say Fe to Fi, because I’m more comfortable with Fi…? Yeah, I agree—sometimes I do definitely, probably even most of the time, but always..?

Steve and Strrrng, you’re both smart people—I know you to be, and that’s why I’m considering what you (currently) believe about this… I’m still considering it, and honestly will keep an open mind about it as long as you’re willing to explain it. Somehow I doubt that your whole understanding has been conveyed—regardless here’s a question about what’s been written so far: where’s the reasoning behind why ppl don’t experience their non-quadra functions..? So far the explanation seems to be something along the lines of ‘that’s just how it is.’ If I tried to pass this off as logical reasoning at Northwestern, they might have asked me to transfer. : )

As to your theory itself: what’s been written connotes that ppl’s personalities are more simplistic than Model A would have ppl believe. It denotes this: ppl, rather than experiencing/expressing primarily X and secondarily Y (as in Model A,) ppl experience/express only X. Furthermore, Y repels them.

(1)This understanding does not attempt to take into account the potential peculiarities/outliers of ppl's personalities—often (if not necessarily) these would exist outside of the ‘feedback loop.’ Model A does attempt to take them into account, (albeit imperfectly,) i.e. how one experiences/expresses the non-‘feedback loop’ functions. In other words, your understanding makes ppl seem less multi-faceted than they are, and with less potential to develop peculiarities (outside of their feedback loops) than they actually have. This understanding distorts reality more than Model A does, I feel sad to say.

(2) The ‘feedback loop’ represents an ideal way of functioning, of experiencing/expressing reality—not actuality. Sometimes, by certain circumstances, one’s forced to care about/focus on functions outside of one’s feedback loop—e.g. at NU I had to utilize Ti to understand certain concepts in physics… This was necessary for me to achieve my objective: doing well in the course. Your understanding, at least what you’ve conveyed thus far, connotes that it should not have been possible for me to develop a situational understanding via Ti. Your theory suggests that it should have lead to a ‘perturbed state.’ I’ll be honest: unless one’s hypersensitive, not socialized well, bipolar, (i.e. with some mental diagnosis,) ‘perturbed state’ is not a good description of it. One gets used to the perturbation after awhile, and then it becomes not so perturbing at all… Indeed, for me, using Ti was difficult, especially at first—for one of the first times in my life I had to put in extra effort at school, but it became easier with repetition… Perhaps this would not happen with everyone, I admit, but your understanding does not allow for it to happen at all… Another distortion of reality.

As I said, I’m pretty sure there’s more to your theory b/c I doubt that you two would get behind something like this if that’s all that there is to it. I understand how it might appeal to ppl, b/c it is idealistic—a black & white interpretation of something very grey… In Socionics, however, we should be going for realism… I’m happy that it makes more sense than Hitta though, lol—and that it can be useful to type people more accurately.

I’m still open to whatever you’ll say, but yeah, the aforementioned are concerns... I'm interested to hear your logic. Peace, -Justin.

strrrng
06-08-2008, 04:55 AM
-model A is the black-and-white, prescriptive one
-your physics example is not detailed enough to be valid
-what we're saying is not idealistic at all. how I would love to use Te and whatnot. feedback cycles are how reality operates. there is no arbitrary/superfluous usage of things.

JuJu
06-08-2008, 05:10 AM
-model A is the black-and-white, prescriptive one
-your physics example is not detailed enough to be valid
-what we're saying is not idealistic at all. how I would love to use Te and whatnot. feedback cycles are how reality operates. there is no arbitrary/superfluous usage of things.

strrrng, no offense, but you're overlooking the flaws of what you've proposed... I understand you're attached to it, or w/e, but it is what it is. no offense. peace.

it would be good to respond with logic as well... or else, yeah, it doesn't mean much... we know that from hitta, haha

strrrng
06-08-2008, 05:19 AM
strrrng, no offense, but you're overlooking the flaws of what you've proposed... I understand you're attached to it, or w/e, but it is what it is. no offense. peace.

it would be good to respond with logic as well... or else, yeah, it doesn't mean much... we know that from hitta, haha

I'm not attached to anything lol.

JuJu
06-08-2008, 05:30 AM
I'm not attached to anything lol.

That's good--I misunderstood you, I guess... I'm sorry. I'm not attached to anything either. In fact, to be honest, I'm totally open to what you're saying...

Picking out problems with the theories, I believe, will help everyone's understanding of them.

I agree with you that feedback cycles are the ways in which we communicate--right now though, I'm thinking that Model A does a better job of conveying the potentialities/complications of such cycles than what's been proposed here... You may still be right--I'm just waiting for more info.

strrrng
06-08-2008, 06:18 AM
As to your theory itself: what’s been written connotes that ppl’s personalities are more simplistic than Model A would have ppl believe. It denotes this: ppl, rather than experiencing/expressing primarily X and secondarily Y (as in Model A,) ppl experience/express only X. Furthermore, Y repels them.

that is not what it suggests at all. model A is what suggests that. model A says you only use two functions consciously and desperately seek out two others on an unconscious level. this idea is about making use of each true aspect of reality (N, S, T, F) in a different yet interconnected way, i.e., making use out of all quadra functions rather than two. the only thing we said about repulsion was that Fi would repel Fe, or Te would repel Ti, because it is like two objects trying to occupy the same space - it won't work.

horse manure.

Steve
06-08-2008, 06:31 AM
Additionally, the understanding we're working with incorporates the idea that people's personalities are FAR MORE COMPLICATED than Model A would lead people to believe.

I'll respond to the rest in a bit.

FDG
06-08-2008, 08:44 AM
Not to be critical, but what is this discussion about? Because I have trouble capturing the main thread of the conversation.

Expat
06-08-2008, 11:44 AM
model A says you only use two functions consciously and desperately seek out two others on an unconscious level.

That's not really what model A says, you know. Or, even if some of the simplistic theoretical descriptions of model A could be (mis)interpreted that way, any reading of socionics articles, even type descriptions, shows that it's not the case.

This whole criticism by you and Steve of model A is a huge strawman argument. Of course it can and should be criticized, and maybe your own model is "better" (where, from my perspective, "better" is necessarily connected to what you can do with it. But anyway). But you're not criticising model A in its own terms; you're criticising your own misinterpretations of it. That's what has to be "set straight".

JuJu
06-08-2008, 05:23 PM
That's not really what model A says, you know. Or, even if some of the simplistic theoretical descriptions of model A could be (mis)interpreted that way, any reading of socionics articles, even type descriptions, shows that it's not the case.

This whole criticism by you and Steve of model A is a huge strawman argument. Of course it can and should be criticized, and maybe your own model is "better" (where, from my perspective, "better" is necessarily connected to what you can do with it. But anyway). But you're not criticising model A in its own terms; you're criticising your own misinterpretations of it. That's what has to be "set straight".

I'm waiting for the 'meat' of their argument... I imagine that there is some, because like I previously said, I know them to be intelligent, and I don't understand why they would get behind this idea if there's this little to it... So yeah, hopefully an explanation is coming.

That said, so far it does seem to be a Strawman argument--based on a misinterpretation of Model A--which has lead to a model that is less reflective of reality than Model A... But which could be helpful for typing ppl more accurately.

It may still be "better" though... Let's see.

strrrng
06-08-2008, 05:26 PM
horse and cow manure. I love em both.

JuJu
06-08-2008, 05:39 PM
horse and cow manure. I love em both.

So you keep posting em..? Let's not derail the thread... All that I'm asking you to do is support your idea with logic and address critiques. It shouldn't be this hard or involve poop haha

strrrng
06-08-2008, 05:46 PM
So you keep posting em..? Let's not derail the thread... All that I'm asking you to do is support your idea with logic and address critiques. It shouldn't be this hard or involve poop haha

the whole thread is horseshit. the only hope is that steve can articulate some Ti shit that will be interpreted well. The work it would take to actually logically evaluate arguments on this topic has proven to be pointless.

JuJu
06-08-2008, 05:57 PM
the whole thread is horseshit. the only hope is that steve can articulate some Ti shit that will be interpreted well. The work it would take to actually logically evaluate arguments on this topic has proven to be pointless.

you could try to articulate something too, you know, that explains where you're coming from... What's pointless is to give up because you think it's pointless. That doesn't help anyone here... I'm willing to do the work.

strrrng
06-08-2008, 06:09 PM
well, maybe steve can give some Si detail or something...lol

Steve
06-08-2008, 09:15 PM
That's not really what model A says, you know. Or, even if some of the simplistic theoretical descriptions of model A could be (mis)interpreted that way, any reading of socionics articles, even type descriptions, shows that it's not the case.

This whole criticism by you and Steve of model A is a huge strawman argument. Of course it can and should be criticized, and maybe your own model is "better" (where, from my perspective, "better" is necessarily connected to what you can do with it. But anyway). But you're not criticising model A in its own terms; you're criticising your own misinterpretations of it. That's what has to be "set straight".

What aspects of model A are we misinterpreting? I base my claims regarding Model A on observations of people on this forum doing things I complained about in this thread, and referencing model a when they do it. Perhaps these people are misinterpreting model A, and that I would have no issue with the "correct" model A interpretation, but I have not heard an interpretation of model A that I do not have an issue with. Perhaps you could offer the "correct" model A interpretation, and maybe I won't take issue at all with it.

However this thread has not only been about finding flaws in model a (the way I've seen it being used); this thread has also addressed some of the issues with how I've seen many people interpret functions (which relates to how they see these functions in the context of model A) - not as information processes but as surface behavioral traits. For example people have alluded to ENxps having difficulty taking care of their health because of "weak" Si. or ESFjs always being late because of an Ni PoLR, or cite an ENTp using Id Te. As you can see, the issue is intertwined between people having an incomplete view of the functions, and looking for a justification of that incomplete understanding within the context of model A.


That said, so far it does seem to be a Strawman argument--based on a misinterpretation of Model A--which has lead to a model that is less reflective of reality than Model A... But which could be helpful for typing ppl more accurately.

If a Socionics model/understanding can be used to type people more accurately, isn't that THE reality that socionics tries to model? Wouldn't THAT model be the one more reflective of reality? What about model A do you see as more reflective of reality?


Steve and Strrrng, you’re both smart people—I know you to be, and that’s why I’m considering what you (currently) believe about this… I’m still considering it, and honestly will keep an open mind about it as long as you’re willing to explain it. Somehow I doubt that your whole understanding has been conveyed—regardless here’s a question about what’s been written so far: where’s the reasoning behind why ppl don’t experience their non-quadra functions..? So far the explanation seems to be something along the lines of ‘that’s just how it is.’ If I tried to pass this off as logical reasoning at Northwestern, they might have asked me to transfer. : )

I had asked you earlier in the thread, but maybe you missed it. What exactly is your interpretation of Fe? You say that you see/experience it daily, so what is it that you see/experience that falls under the Fe label?

Justin I appreciate your willingness to keep an open mind, but what haven't I explained regarding my understanding? A lot of this stuff is hard to justify concretely because it's based off of things that you just "see" about reality - anyone is capable of it if they just pay attention. Since this stuff is hard to justify on a concrete basis, I wanted you to experience it first hand, so I showed you the examples of Ti and Te writing with Jefferson and Washington respectively.functions Ti and Te, hoping that you would be able to get a distinct feeling as to which style feels more natural to you, and feel how each has a distinctly different rhythm.

I think the best way to do this is just to show you how the functions relate to your own experience. So the first step is to show you how you, in particular don't use your non-quadra functions. I think it's pretty clear that you don't use Ti, don't use Se, and I don't think you really use Ni, because, and I think you'll agree, the way strrrng describes Ni and the Ni/Se loop vs the Ne/Si loop reflects a different style than the way you and I perceive things. The last function of dispute seems to be your relationship with Fe, so as I asked again above, please describe your experience with Fe, and what causes those things to fall under the Fe label. That should be the last piece of the puzzle. I also invite you to read my description of Si, and I think you'll see that it resonates with you, and that you are aware of Si quite strongly.

My Si description: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=313377&postcount=17

While that description is from the perspective of an ENXp's experience of Si (a more broad experience of it - looking at it through NeTi eyes, or NeFi in your case), ESXjs and ISXps should relate with the essence of the description - for them their Si will be more honed, since it is one of their primary modes of functioning ("ego bloc" or whatever - just as your Te won't be as precise or honed as an ISTp's or ESTj's, but the awareness is still there strongly). As you'll see in the description, Si is a dramatically different way of processing external perception than Se is, and just imagine to yourself "If a person is so in tune with processing things THIS way, how could they ever want to/be able to process things the other way?" I think you'll get it - just let down the guard of needing specific tangible substantiation (not that substantiation isn't possible) and simply experience the difference between the functions and you will see.

Steve
06-08-2008, 10:38 PM
BTW Justin come on stickam sometime :). I'd be happy to talk about stuff there as well.

JuJu
06-09-2008, 12:01 AM
Justin I appreciate your willingness to keep an open mind, but what haven't I explained regarding my understanding?

What’s goin on Steve—I’m hoping that you can address the critiques of what’s been said thus far, (made in post #42.) Can your model explain those points? Also, maybe could you elaborate on what you said in post #48 about your system incorporating the idea that ppl’s personalities are more complicated than Model A conveys..? I haven’t heard anything about that idea beyond that one statement. (If it’s true though, obviously that’s huge.)

As to what you said in your above post—I read what you linked to up there, and yeah, it makes sense…

What I am disputing with you and Strrrng, is the idea that ppl do not (and furthermore cannot) use fuctions #3, 4, 7, and 8. No logic has been presented in favor of this view yet. No examples either. In fact, nothing has been presented in favor of it… What I’m trying to get you to do is present something.

If you can do this well, you’ll have converted someone—me… : )

You know, before I realized that I wanted to be a journalist, a couple years ago I was starting a grad program at Harvard in the History of Science… That field is full of this, over and over again: if a scientist has a new idea that he believes to be better than an old idea, he has to present it and prove it to his peers. Those peers will give the idea a lot of attention, and ultimately either accept it as valid or else it will wither under the scrutiny… That’s what’s we’re doing here. :) Justin

P.S. The reason that your theory is good for typing is because it cuts right to the major points of one’s personality (functions 1,2,5, and 6…) The reason it’s not “better” than Model A though, is because it cuts out the finer points of one’s personality, (functions 3,4, 7, and 8…)

P.P.S. I don't have a webcam, so can't go on Stickam... In this case, we're better off writing anyway--it's easier to discern if something makes sense or not this way... Plus, it's public so other ppl can make up their minds as well. Peace.

strrrng
06-09-2008, 01:38 AM
What I am disputing with you and Strrrng, is the idea that ppl do not (and furthermore cannot) use fuctions #3, 4, 7, and 8. No logic has been presented in favor of this view yet. No examples either. In fact, nothing has been presented in favor of it… What I’m trying to get you to do is present something.

For the sake of understanding exactly where you're coming from, could you explain why and how people use their unvalued functions? I'm not sure how to answer your question without this piece of information.

JuJu
06-09-2008, 04:51 AM
For the sake of understanding exactly where you're coming from, could you explain why and how people use their unvalued functions? I'm not sure how to answer your question without this piece of information.

Oh, ok, to know where I'm coming from you could look at the descriptions by Stratiev(etc. haha,) which explain each function for each type… Rick's description of IEE does it too, I think… Just that stuff... I think it explains it pretty well... That's where I'm coming from, pretty much.

Steve
06-09-2008, 05:28 AM
What’s goin on Steve—I’m hoping that you can address the critiques of what’s been said thus far, (made in post #42.) Can your model explain those points? Also, maybe could you elaborate on what you said in post #48 about your system incorporating the idea that ppl’s personalities are more complicated than Model A conveys..? I haven’t heard anything about that idea beyond that one statement. (If it’s true though, obviously that’s huge.)

Ok I have that post quoted below - I'll address it point by point.


As to what you said in your above post—I read what you linked to up there, and yeah, it makes sense…

Cool


What I am disputing with you and Strrrng, is the idea that ppl do not (and furthermore cannot) use fuctions #3, 4, 7, and 8. No logic has been presented in favor of this view yet. No examples either. In fact, nothing has been presented in favor of it… What I’m trying to get you to do is present something.

If you can do this well, you’ll have converted someone—me… : )

See my points further down. Also, where's the logic saying that people DO use those functions? I already gave the theoretical logic about how functions compete for the same space (Ti vs Fi compete for the static field space) and how one's mind ain't big enough for the two of em'. I provided examples that illustrated different styles of information processing/expression and hoped that you could immerse yourself and experience the different rhythms of Ti and Te writing. I'm glad the Si description resonates with you, so I ask you, based on your experience with Si, can you really see yourself doing Se?


What you’re saying is that I convert my understanding of say Fe to Fi, because I’m more comfortable with Fi…? Yeah, I agree—sometimes I do definitely, probably even most of the time, but always..?

(1)This understanding does not attempt to take into account the potential peculiarities/outliers of ppl's personalities—often (if not necessarily) these would exist outside of the ‘feedback loop.’ Model A does attempt to take them into account, (albeit imperfectly,) i.e. how one experiences/expresses the non-‘feedback loop’ functions. In other words, your understanding makes ppl seem less multi-faceted than they are, and with less potential to develop peculiarities (outside of their feedback loops) than they actually have. This understanding distorts reality more than Model A does, I feel sad to say.

Not at all. And I believe you just illustrated the issue with how functions are seen by most people (as aspects of people's personalities instead of ways of information processing). The type of feedback loop we're referring to with the quadra functions refers to a very core way of information processing and CANNOT be directly tied to specific behavior. People of the very same type will do all sorts of different behavioral things and be their own person shaped by their life experience, genetics, and a whole bunch of other stuff. The possibilities for what people can do are limitless - so this understanding of socionics if anything opens the doors wide open for the many facets of people. All we're saying is that on the most abstract level, there are these four aspects of information processing, and that a person prefers one way to perceive information over another other.



(2) The ‘feedback loop’ represents an ideal way of functioning, of experiencing/expressing reality—not actuality. Sometimes, by certain circumstances, one’s forced to care about/focus on functions outside of one’s feedback loop—e.g. at NU I had to utilize Ti to understand certain concepts in physics… This was necessary for me to achieve my objective: doing well in the course. Your understanding, at least what you’ve conveyed thus far, connotes that it should not have been possible for me to develop a situational understanding via Ti. Your theory suggests that it should have lead to a ‘perturbed state.’ I’ll be honest: unless one’s hypersensitive, not socialized well, bipolar, (i.e. with some mental diagnosis,) ‘perturbed state’ is not a good description of it. One gets used to the perturbation after awhile, and then it becomes not so perturbing at all… Indeed, for me, using Ti was difficult, especially at first—for one of the first times in my life I had to put in extra effort at school, but it became easier with repetition… Perhaps this would not happen with everyone, I admit, but your understanding does not allow for it to happen at all… Another distortion of reality.

Regarding the physics example, how did you go about learning the material that made it seem Ti to you? Your professor probably was a Ti type (there are a shitload of Alpha NT physics teachers) and he/she probably presented it in a really Ti way, which is why you really needed to exert effort to translate it to properly understand it. I can see in my head how you went about it - the prof gives you a Ti structure, and you try to find ways to extract from it these general neat principles that seem to contain all the information you need, then you sit down and repeat these general principles over and over in a neat linear fashion until they catch on as a neat Te sequence in your mind. You remind me of my dad who's your identical and how he would go about "studying" stuff. I see how you both get such a satisfaction once you've found the chain of little Te idea balls to roll along, and how everything seems so clear to you that way lol. I see it working like this in your mind with the balls rolling around that ring:

http://www.britsattheirbest.com/images/ii_ball_bearings.gif

Ti doesn't work that way. A Ti person may very well take a different path to the answer each time they think because there's a zillion connections unified through a central "criteria". And as long as the Ti person understands the central criteria, it doesn't matter what route they take to get there, as long as they get there. This is why I think it'd be rare to find a Ti person doing lots of repetition of generalized "concepts", or repeating a specific sequence out loud to themselves as a way of remembering something the way you did. All they have to do is find one aspect of the concept that connects to the working understanding they have, and they can fill in all the rest.

So I still believe that you went about learning physics in a Te way, and it took effort because you needed to find a way to translate these "undefined" (to you) criteria for a framework into something self-contained and discrete (Te). Since your professor was most likely a Ti type, and since many physicists are Ti including Einstein, Newton, Feynman, physics can seem like a Ti-field. Anyone can learn physics, it's just that they will go about learning it in different ways.

I experienced a conversely similar equivalent in my freshman year college essay course. Fucking INFj professor lol. She had a major issue (from my perspective) communicating what she wanted in the essay, and refused to give any direction as to how the essay should be structured. She'd just give vague generalities like "Your idea needs to evolve through new points and reckon with itself through the essay". And it literally pissed the shit out of me - I don't know if I've ever been that annoyed with anything else in school. There was absolutely nothing I could attach onto so that I would work into my understanding as to how to write the essay. So what ended up happening was I would write a rough draft, she'd say I have my work cut out for me, and I'd send it to my Fi ENFp dad and he'd help me fix it and sure enough it worked lol. The idea here is that I always have needed that Ti external structure and unifying criteria in order to understand something, and when things are not presented that way, it requires significant effort on my part to try to search through the random bits of Te information to try to tie them together somehow. You basically do the reverse when you're presented with Ti.

These should be sufficient enough examples to show you how people need to exert effort and strain to translate information presented with non-valued functions to their native functions. People never experience those non-valued functions directly, they need to translate it, and as you can see from numerous google translations of Russian Socionics material, there are things that are lost in translation. Consider everything I've said in the thread regarding the nature of functions. I would still like to hear what your conception of Fe is, since you believe that you may use it. We need to make sure we're on the same page and that you and I are looking at the functions the same way if we're discussing how they manifest.

JuJu
06-09-2008, 07:35 AM
Also, where's the logic saying that people DO use those functions?

It's in most function-by-function descriptions of each Socionics type, e.g. Straties'(etc.) Rick's of IEE, I believe... Most of those 'in greater depth' Russian descriptions describe how ppl use their 'non-feedback loop' functions... Have you read any of those..? I'm sorry if I've been presumptuous, I'd just assumed you had.

Anyway, I'm about to go to bed... I will read what you wrote before I go to sleep and get back to you about it tomorrow.

As to my belief about Fe--maybe you could read the Fe description for IEE in Straties (etc) or Rick's description of the IEE type and pretend it's my opinion, lol... We're testing your theory here, after all. I'm not the one with the new theory, so we're going to test the new (yours,) against the old, (theirs.) Make sense? Haha, ok, peace, -Justin

strrrng
06-09-2008, 07:41 AM
In most function-by-function descriptions of each Socionics type, e.g. Straties'(etc.) Rick's of IEE, I believe... Most of those 'in greater depth' Russian descriptions describe how ppl use their 'non-feedback loop' functions... Have you read any of those..? I'm sorry, I was assuming that you had.

Anyway, I'm about to go to bed... I will read what you wrote before I go to sleep and get back to you about it tomorrow.

As to my belief about Fe--I guess, you could read the Fe description for IEE in Straties (etc) or Rick's description of the IEE type and pretend it's my opinion, lol... We're testing your theory here, after all. I'm not the one with the new theory, so we're going to test the new (yours,) against the old, (theirs.) Make sense? Haha, ok, peace, -Justin

Justin, no offense, but all you're doing is reciting Te shit. I think Steve was looking for more of a logical argument about why we use our non-valued functions.

JuJu
06-09-2008, 08:01 AM
Steve, upon reading your answers, I can answer them quickly, as it seems to me that you missed the main point of the original questions. Thus I'll distill them to examples, which should be easier for you or strrrng to answer:

#1) What if a ENFp developed a preference (called a peculiarity in #42) for "experiencing" a function outside of his feedback loop--say Fe, as descibed in Straties(etc) function-by-function IEE description... How would your model account for such an anomaly, if it can?

#2) What if a ENFp focused on developing a function (for whatever reason) outside of his feedback loop into a skill--say Ti, as described in Straties(etc) function-by-function description of IEE... How would your model account for such an anomaly, if it can?

These are questions that Model can answer... Can your model answer them? Ok, gnight, -Justin

JuJu
06-09-2008, 08:02 AM
Justin, no offense, but all you're doing is reciting Te shit. I think Steve was looking for more of a logical argument about why we use our non-valued functions.

strrrng, I'm referring you guys to what you're actually arguing with, i.e. Socionics theory... Not me. :)

Model A has already accounted for the above two questions. I want to see if your theory can...

I can tell that's what Steve's looking for, btw, but I'm not interested in that... That will mire us in trying to correct each other's understanding, lol, and I'm not interested in a discussion of semantics... What I'm interested in is whether your theory makes more sense than Model A--and Model A theory has already been articulated. That's why I'm referring him (you both, I guess) to practical examples of it.



Essentially, what I'm getting at is this: there's a whole body of literature (i.e. Socionics theory) that says we "experience" these non-quadra functions (sometimes termed 'non-feedback cycles' in this thread.) If we do not experience these functions, as your theory states--then a few questions come to mind. That is to say, logically, there are instances, one could conjecture, where one might develop these non-quadra functions, e.g. (a couple of these instances were addressed in the aforementioned questions, and in post 42.)

Your theory denotes that we don't experience them at all--that we convert them to what experience better. (That's how I imagine one of you will say your theory responds to these questions, anyway... I'm hoping that you surprise me, lol.) I want to see what your theory can do.

Even more basically though, (i.e. your theory vs. Model A:) how does your theory attempt to account for the numerous examples, provided in Socionics literature, (e.g. Straties-etc, Rick, etc) of ppl experiencing non-quadra functions? Can it address them in a way besides, (paraphrasing, lol,) "that's crazy... ppl don't experience that." If so, what are these experiences called in your theory..? Do you see what I'm getting at?

strrrng
06-09-2008, 09:14 AM
this is bullshit. this thread should burn in hell.

Steve
06-09-2008, 09:28 AM
It's in most function-by-function descriptions of each Socionics type, e.g. Straties'(etc.) Rick's of IEE, I believe... Most of those 'in greater depth' Russian descriptions describe how ppl use their 'non-feedback loop' functions... Have you read any of those..? I'm sorry if I've been presumptuous, I'd just assumed you had.

Anyway, I'm about to go to bed... I will read what you wrote before I go to sleep and get back to you about it tomorrow.

As to my belief about Fe--maybe you could read the Fe description for IEE in Straties (etc) or Rick's description of the IEE type and pretend it's my opinion, lol... We're testing your theory here, after all. I'm not the one with the new theory, so we're going to test the new (yours,) against the old, (theirs.) Make sense? Haha, ok, peace, -Justin

I've spent hours writing posts today, and spent a lot of time carefully trying to illustrate the point from multiple different angles and dimensions. And then now I get the typical Delta Aristocratic "Don't debate my logic, for it is not my logic, it is the logic of the Socionics authorities." Justin it's time to stop hiding behind your sources like a typical Delta and talk from real experience and your OWN understanding. You're the one who's supposedly trying to be convinced, not Rick, not Stratie. I understand that by allying yourself with "the bigwhigs" it moves you up in the social ladder and puts you in the daddy's chair, but seriously, enough.


Steve, upon reading your answers, I can answer them quickly, as it seems to me that you missed the main point of the original questions.

BULL SHIT. You're pulling a hkkmr and hiding behind convolution. I don't know if you intentionally planned this by trying to continually elude the arguments and evidence, so that when I complain I look like the bad guy and it makes me and my argument lose credibility. I hope that's not the case.

I've answered the questions left, right, up, down, back, and forth, and I think most people reading the thread would agree. I'm getting tired of the lack of understanding and your evading the issues.

I'm done answering questions, because they are the same questions you originally asked, and I answered them beyond thoroughly, citing examples of how each information element manifests. It's really not that difficult to understand.

I believe my explanations are more than enough for those who are truly interested.


I can tell that's what Steve's looking for, btw, but I'm not interested in that... That will mire us in trying to correct each other's understanding, lol,

Um no it won't, that's what IM interested in because there is only one correct understanding of the functions, so of course we should seek to find that one correct understanding. I'm strongly getting the sense though that you have no actual understanding; that all you can do to address my points is to shove other people's opinions and arguments in my face. I'd like to think differently...


and I'm not interested in a discussion of semantics...

Stop trying to evade with bullshit. - I don't argue over semantics, I argue over substance.

I don't have anything personal against you, I'm just calling you out on things that need to be pointed out. I invite you to seriously put aside what THE SOURCES say, and discuss the functions as they relate to your own experience, because if you don't, you're doing the same thing you criticized me for: arguing solely on a theoretical basis. The info is all here, make use of it if you want.

mikemex
06-09-2008, 05:57 PM
@Steve:

What you say about Te can also be said about Fe: to me it seems like it lacks structure at all and are just bits of something I have no idea what it is.

The comparison should be between Ti and Fi. My take on it is that Ti and Fi handle the same problems but at different levels. Ti is binary and requires judgments to be absolute (either true or false) and for this reason Ti types are more fond of analysis, which is the process that implies decomposing complex problems into simpler statements.

Fi, however, is continuous: it handles different levels of truth. For that reason it is only really applicable to complex problems that require simultaneous judgment of several statements; hence the relational nature of Fi. Fi types are thus fond of synthesis.

But you're wrong if you think that ILE can't understand Fi and IEE can't understand Ti. It's just that they don't produce it at all and thus are dependent on external sources.

Steve
06-09-2008, 07:58 PM
@Steve:

What you say about Te can also be said about Fe: to me it seems like it lacks structure at all and are just bits of something I have no idea what it is.

Interesting. Makes sense.


The comparison should be between Ti and Fi. My take on it is that Ti and Fi handle the same problems but at different levels. Ti is binary and requires judgments to be absolute (either true or false) and for this reason Ti types are more fond of analysis, which is the process that implies decomposing complex problems into simpler statements.

Fi, however, is continuous: it handles different levels of truth. For that reason it is only really applicable to complex problems that require simultaneous judgment of several statements; hence the relational nature of Fi. Fi types are thus fond of synthesis.

Interesting points. I know what you're getting at by the "different levels of truth" and "simultaneous judgment of several statements". I can see Fi types doing that - it's something that seems foreign to the way I do things, and something that I wouldn't know what to do with. I feel like what you said about the "different levels of truth" has an aspect of the Te hierarchy/prioritizing in it, and it's a good example of how Te works with Fi.


But you're wrong if you think that ILE can't understand Fi and IEE can't understand Ti. It's just that they don't produce it at all and thus are dependent on external sources.

I don't believe that an ILE can experience Fi directly. They may understand how Fi works from an external perspective, be able to recognize it, and even get a sense of the process Fi people use to come up with their judgments, but they can never actually undergo that process themselves. An ILE (I've done this many times before) can even figure out what judgment an Fi person will actually come to, but they do it by figuring out the Fi person's thinking patterns and analyze them from an external perspective.

But as I mentioned two paragraphs ago, that "different levels of truth" aspect and the "simultaneous judements" idea are things that wouldn't have any value to me in their raw form. In fact doing things that way will frequently yield conclusions/opinions that directly oppose those that I would reach doing things in my native way, which is why I think Ti/Fe people can only watch Fi people use Fi, they can never do it/directly experience the process themselves because it conflicts with their normal processing mode.

JuJu
06-09-2008, 09:02 PM
man Steve, all that I'm trying do is get you to explain why we don't experience non-quadra functions, which Socionics theory says that we do experience... That's all I'm asking you to do. :) That's it. It's simple... Does your theory address that somehow? That's the only question I'm asking you to answer--and I would think that it'd be easy.

It seems like you're getting mad because you believe that I'm calling you out--I'm not. At all. All that I'm trying to do is get you to explain your theory in light of the current theory... Can you do that? Please, let's be more mature about it than in the last post. That was pretty silly. There's no need for anything personal at all... Ok, peace.

Steve
06-09-2008, 09:55 PM
man Steve, all that I'm trying do is get you to explain why we don't experience non-quadra functions, which Socionics theory says that we do experience... That's all I'm asking you to do. :) That's it. It's simple... Does your theory address that somehow? That's the only question I'm asking you to answer--and I would think that it'd be easy.

It seems like you're getting mad because you believe that I'm calling you out--I'm not. At all. All that I'm trying to do is get you to explain your theory in light of the current theory... Can you do that? Please, let's be more mature about it than in the last post. That was pretty silly. There's no need for anything personal at all... Ok, peace.

It was not silly at all, and it was quite mature - to me what's immature is continually dismissing something without considering the substance of it- and I needed to let you know directly that I have no tolerance for people who are unwilling to argue from their own point of view, and people who cannot separate themselves from intellectual sources that are deemed "official" (which is how this all comes across to me). You wouldn't get the message any other way, because in my numerous previous posts I had asked you to describe personal examples of you using various functions. I also asked you to explain why you think that those examples would illustrate uses of those functions so that I could get a better sense on how you actually see the functions, but the only example you gave me was the physics example, which I directly addressed and analyzed, which you did not respond to. I wanted to get a sense of where you're coming from regarding your PERSONAL understanding of the functions, because ultimately the only way to be able to recognize the functions in experience is to actually have a personal understanding of them. My hope was that once you described to me how you experience the various functions, we could reconcile/straighten out our understanding of them to make sure that we're on the same page, and then discuss my claims about the model, both coming from the same reference point. I really don't know why you've been evading doing that. I spent a lot of time and effort trying to explain in great detail, providing a quite comprehensive background and multi-dimensional illustration of different functions and how they manifest in people, and basically you read it and say -"Nope, try again", or "I don't want to talk about that because it's not important" - who are you to say what's important in the discussion and what's not? It's abominably frustrating to say the least. You didn't address anything I brought up and made me feel like I wasted a lot of my time on someone who's just going to outwardly dismiss it without addressing it. This is starting to feel like communicating with my college writing professor. Maybe you and I are misunderstanding each other because we are just coming from totally different places (Ti vs Fi); maybe we can't understand what exactly the other one is asking. If so, this whole discussion should be a blatant validation of the ideas I've been saying, how there's NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL ENFps can understand Ti in the slightest, and likewise with ENTps and Fi.

I believe I've answered your question in every which way possible, while you don't seem to feel the same. Every time I go about answering the question you feel that I haven't addressed the question, so I really don't know what you want. Do you want me to read through and compare Rick's functional descriptions point for point? That's way too painstaking and I don't believe it's necessary here to understand what I've been trying to convey. For what it's worth I have read Rick's Fe description and I think it captures aspects of Fe, regarding how Fe plays off of the external mood and is quite outwardly expressive. However one has to be very careful when interpreting that, because all people will be outwardly expressive in some way, it's just that Fe types are aware of specific dynamics that occur and have an outwardly energizing effect on other Fe people.

I don't believe that anything has to be proven "in light of the current theory". All considerations should be regarded as equal - the "current theory" should be just as much on the hot seat as whatever understanding I'm portraying here. The original Model A theory was constructed with the intention of DESCRIBING REALITY, and what I'm trying to do is MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBE REALITY. So what should be critiqued here is which of the two theories models reality more accurately, not me trying to pick apart every bit of logic of every socionist who has affiliated himself with "the current theory".

Here's a way to see if we're misunderstanding each other or not:

Why don't you give me a sample answer to the question you're asking.


explain why we don't experience non-quadra functions

Give me a mock answer as to how you're looking to have this question answered. That seems to be the only way to do this.

Take a good hard look at this discussion - it's clear that I'm Ti-ing the whole thing up the wazoo and you're totally missing it, and you're Fi-ing back at me and I seem to totally be missing it to you - YOU WANT YOUR EXAMPLE DISPROVING THE THEORY?! HERE IT IS - STARING YOU RIGHT IN THE FACE! Ti WILL NEVER WORK WITH AN ENFp AND Fi WILL NEVER WORK WITH AN ENTp. The PoLR is virulent poison, end of story.

Sabo
06-09-2008, 11:00 PM
I plead guilty to not having read all 8 pages of this thread, but this is an interesting way of looking at things. My question is -- d'you assert that ENTps and ISFps are equally incapable of using Te? So then Te PoLR is identical to Te as an 8th function, in which case unvalued functions can't be ordered? Personally, do you find Fi, Te, Ni, and Se equally incomprehensible? Or am I just misunderstanding your model?

strrrng
06-10-2008, 12:05 AM
lol Justin, enough with the manipulative delta/so/6 bullshit. I don't appreciate the cycle: acting aggreeable-->>pulling some Te shit by asking for examples-->>dismissing personal logic because it isn't documented-->>chastising someone for expressing frustration with your attitude.

Steve has written enough to be published in a short story lol, yet you still just sit there, puffing that delta cigar, and ignore it because ?it lacks Te? lol. I dunno, but I just feel bad when someone puts in so much effort into something and gets zero reciprocation, hence why I said this thread is horse shit and should burn in hell.

Steve
06-10-2008, 01:21 AM
I plead guilty to not having read all 8 pages of this thread, but this is an interesting way of looking at things. My question is -- d'you assert that ENTps and ISFps are equally incapable of using Te? So then Te PoLR is identical to Te as an 8th function, in which case unvalued functions can't be ordered? Personally, do you find Fi, Te, Ni, and Se equally incomprehensible? Or am I just misunderstanding your model?

Good question. It's not so much about being equally incapable, as much as it is which function conflicts the most with you and requires the most translation (essentially how you react to them when they're presented to you). ENTps obviously will be the most averse to Fi and ISFps the most averse to Te. I think I can make easier sense (require less translation) of Te and Ni than I would Se and Fi, since while Te and Ni do conflict with the functions I have a less honed but still strong awareness of (Si and Fe), they don't conflict as directly with my primary mode of functioning (I as a static type have my most honed/focused awareness of a static object function (Ne) and a static field function (Ti).)

So for me I hate Fi and Se the most, while Te and Ni can range from a little fly to swat to moderately annoying. Sometimes when Te is thrown at me, I can feel the Fi there lurking in the background (because of the Te/Fi feedback loop), but it's not as bad as getting full blown front and center honed Fi. Same with Ni and Se, although the "feel in the background" thing seems worse with Te and Fi for me.

I also want to note though that I can get along fine with people who have opposite functions than me, as long as we're all open minded and not too quick to make short-sighted judgments.

Gilly
06-10-2008, 01:36 AM
I'm sorry, but saying that you "hate" a function seems like one of the most inane things you can say with reference to Socionics. I personally love Fi, probably more than Ti, just not in the way Fi-valuing types use it.

Steve
06-10-2008, 02:04 AM
I'm sorry, but saying that you "hate" a function seems like one of the most inane things you can say with reference to Socionics. I personally love Fi, probably more than Ti, just not in the way Fi-valuing types use it.

What exactly is your conception of Fi? lol and what do you love about it?

Jonathan
06-10-2008, 02:15 AM
Just a few quick comments on this.


These information elements as they relate to the functions were originally put together by Aushra, who blended Carl Jung's functions and Antoni Kepinski's information metabolism.

Augusta was inspired by Kepinski, but it isn't clear to what extent you can say that Socionics really blended these two theories. It seems to me it's mostly from Jung, with some terms and interpretation based on Kepinski. I would be interested about anything you can point to that shows that some substantive part of the model was from Kepinski.


Strrrng, I and a few others who supposedly have "different" understandings than the majority of the 16types, speak from an information element perspective - the essence of socionics itself. Aushra, the founder of so called "classical socionics" devised these information elements herself.

I think just about everyone on the forum believes they're talking from an information element perspective (with the exception perhaps of a few people who believe that information elements aren't so important, but that would be quite a minority). So, it seems perhaps a little patronizing to say that your views are superior because you're basing your ideas on IM elements and others aren't. Rather, the differences are probably based on the fact that your ideas of the IM elements are different from other peoples'.


Unfortuantely Model A has a lot of shortcomings, including the idea that a person can/will directly experience functions outside of their quadra. This is a total contradiction with the fundamentals of socionics, because Aushra herself incorporated the idea of information metabolism from Kepinsky, who discussed the idea of metabolism as it related to cells. One of the most fundamental principles was that there were certain elements that were beneficial to the cell and promoted healthy functioning, while others interfered and slowed down healthy normal functioning. This is exactly the case with socionics information elements.

This is the crux of your argument, but it makes little sense to me because Augusta got to choose which elements of Kepinski's model she wanted to use. It was up to her what the "fundamentals of socionics" were. Socionics continued to evolve of course, but if anything the evolution has been toward considering that people use a greater diversity of IM elements, rather than less.

Augusta came up with Model A, and also apparently said (independently of talking specifically about Model A) that everybody uses each of the IM elements enough to take care of his/her basic personal needs, but focuses more on the ego block. You're saying that she contradicted herself because Kepinski's model was about more complete oppositions. Well, Augusta got to choose who much of Kepinski's ideas she wanted to take, and apparently she chose to take less of them than you might have...but that does not mean that she contradicted herself.


Saying that I, as an ENTp use Te is like trying to put diesel fuel in a car that is designed for unleaded premium. It just doesn't work. It causes the engine to strain and function poorly and unhealthily. Te to me lacks inherent structure and seems to have no base whatsoever - it's ungrounded to me. Whenever I encounter Te expression, I always need to translate it into my own language and find an inherent link between the nodes of Te strolling on the edge.

A person can/will never experience non-quadra functions directly because they simply are detrimental to a person's natural information processing - the person will only react to them.

This argument comes up every once in awhile. It's kind of like saying that black is opposed to white..and deducing therefore that gray does not exist.

Surely, if you wanted to make everything black, then you would be completely opposed to making everything white. Someone who is driven to make everything white would be working completely at cross-purposes with you. However, despite this, gray still exists, and it's a useful color for certain things.

Similarly, yellow and purple are complete opposites on the color wheel. If you make something more yellow, it will be less purple, and if you make it more purple, it will be less yellow. Something that is trying to be yellow will naturally need to be less purple. Now, if you combine these colors in various combinations, you'll probably get brown.

Well, I happen to like brown.

But you might say that if you're trying to concentrate on something, you want a very pure kind of thought. You don't want to be thinking about feelings and social kinds of things while doing a math test. Of course people need to concentrate sometimes. But that's only one aspect of life. It seems to me pretty narrow to only focus on the ego block.

As to the idea that people are only able to interact successfully within a certain quadra....well, that may be nice in theory, but in practice people are just a lot more complex.

Sabo
06-10-2008, 02:16 AM
Good question. It's not so much about being equally incapable, as much as it is which function conflicts the most with you and requires the most translation (essentially how you react to them when they're presented to you). ENTps obviously will be the most averse to Fi and ISFps the most averse to Te. I think I can make easier sense (require less translation) of Te and Ni than I would Se and Fi, since while Te and Ni do conflict with the functions I have a less honed but still strong awareness of (Si and Fe), they don't conflict as directly with my primary mode of functioning (I as a static type have my most honed/focused awareness of a static object function (Ne) and a static field function (Ti).)

Isn't "translating" an information aspect essentially the same thing as using that function? If I understand you correctly, it seems like this just boils down to a semantics debate... what does it mean to "use" a function? Unfortunately, it's hard to come up with a clear answer on this, since we don't really know what functions are to begin with.

strrrng
06-10-2008, 02:19 AM
omfg, cut that shit out. that's the kind of stuff that just perpetuates stupid stereotypes about XEIs + Te-PoLR + being unreasonably stupid. way to keep it up!

did I say Te = facts? No. Te people are however very concerned with objective/concrete data. A Ti person would have focused on the conceptual aspect of what Steve was saying, instead of challenging everything by asking for sources and hiding behind "documented" stuff.

Gilly
06-10-2008, 02:22 AM
Having a particular connection with a person, being able to relate with people on a deeper level than smalltalk and sharing sentiments, having a sense of duty and responsibility to another person, the affirmation gained by realizing that I am "lovable."

And yes I realize that this is not exclusive to Fi valuing types, but it is related to Fi.

strrrng
06-10-2008, 02:24 AM
Having a particular connection with a person, being able to relate with people on a deeper level than smalltalk and sharing sentiments, having a sense of duty and responsibility to another person, the affirmation gained by realizing that I am "lovable."

And yes I realize that this is not exclusive to Fi valuing types, but it is related to Fi.

this is called FRIENDSHIP. fuck, why do people think that traits are functions? Fi types may go about this stuff in a specific way, but those traits are not Fi.

Steve
06-10-2008, 02:27 AM
Isn't "translating" an information aspect essentially the same thing as using that function? If I understand you correctly, it seems like this just boils down to a semantics debate... what does it mean to "use" a function? Unfortunately, it's hard to come up with a clear answer on this, since we don't really know what functions are to begin with.

What I mean by translate is to take information from a non-valued function and try to make sense of it using your valued functions. In this attempted translation, much meaning is lost. The best that can happen is that a person interprets the information into something that vaguely resembles the information from the non-quadra functions, a lot of time missing the actual point.

strrrng
06-10-2008, 02:27 AM
am a "Ti person" and yes, I do want to understand more about conceptual things, but what is so wrong about asking for a more concrete example? I am interested in seeing an example of this too, though I feel like it won't be happening, because you will just say that nobody understands the functions, so when they think they're using (an unvalued) function, they're really not, blah blah blah...

You are aware that I was referring to Justin, right? I didn't say Te people are the only ones concerned with having examples. It was just the manner in which he was going about treating steve's posts that resembled the Ti and Te differences.

Steve
06-10-2008, 02:31 AM
this is called FRIENDSHIP. fuck, why do people think that traits are functions? Fi types may go about this stuff in a specific way, but those traits are not Fi.

Right.

Gilly
06-10-2008, 03:00 AM
this is called FRIENDSHIP. fuck, why do people think that traits are functions? Fi types may go about this stuff in a specific way, but those traits are not Fi.

In Socionics terms, "friendship" is related to Fi: a continuous (static) relationship (fields) based on things that are not necessarily measurable (internal).

strrrng
06-10-2008, 03:11 AM
In Socionics terms, "friendship" is related to Fi: a continuous (static) relationship (fields) based on things that are not necessarily measurable (internal).

dude, don't skew the context by saying "in socionics." Functions are functions - that's it. btw, how is a continuous thing static? I agree about the definitions of internal and fields, but that doesn't mean Fi is all those traits.

Steve
06-10-2008, 04:00 AM
Just a few quick comments on this.
Augusta was inspired by Kepinski, but it isn't clear to what extent you can say that Socionics really blended these two theories. It seems to me it's mostly from Jung, with some terms and interpretation based on Kepinski. I would be interested about anything you can point to that shows that some substantive part of the model was from Kepinski.


Augusta came up with Model A, and also apparently said (independently of talking specifically about Model A) that everybody uses each of the IM elements enough to take care of his/her basic personal needs, but focuses more on the ego block. You're saying that she contradicted herself because Kepinski's model was about more complete oppositions. Well, Augusta got to choose who much of Kepinski's ideas she wanted to take, and apparently she chose to take less of them than you might have...but that does not mean that she contradicted herself.


This is the crux of your argument, but it makes little sense to me because Augusta got to choose which elements of Kepinski's model she wanted to use. It was up to her what the "fundamentals of socionics" were. Socionics continued to evolve of course, but if anything the evolution has been toward considering that people use a greater diversity of IM elements, rather than less.

It doesn't really matter to me how much of the model was taken from Kepinski - if she chose to not consider Kepinski's idea of information metabolism and selecting relevant information while rejecting others, then I believe she was ignoring a critical phenomenon that takes place in reality. I think she was wise to use Kepinski and Jung, since both seemed to describe very real and legitimate phenomenon - it would be a shame if it is true that she did not actually incorporate the aspects of Kepinski I that I noted, because then Model A would seem even more baseless than it already does.



I think just about everyone on the forum believes they're talking from an information element perspective (with the exception perhaps of a few people who believe that information elements aren't so important, but that would be quite a minority). So, it seems perhaps a little patronizing to say that your views are superior because you're basing your ideas on IM elements and others aren't. Rather, the differences are probably based on the fact that your ideas of the IM elements are different from other peoples'.

Ok sure, lets phrase it that way: the way I look at information elements does differ from the way others look at them. I view them as abstract phenomenon while others seem to describe them much more concretely and overt. I tend to think that way of viewing them leads to inconsistencies you'll observe in people's behavior. I do think that the way I view them corresponds most accurately and consistently with reality


This argument comes up every once in awhile. It's kind of like saying that black is opposed to white..and deducing therefore that gray does not exist.

Surely, if you wanted to make everything black, then you would be completely opposed to making everything white. Someone who is driven to make everything white would be working completely at cross-purposes with you. However, despite this, gray still exists, and it's a useful color for certain things.

Similarly, yellow and purple are complete opposites on the color wheel. If you make something more yellow, it will be less purple, and if you make it more purple, it will be less yellow. Something that is trying to be yellow will naturally need to be less purple. Now, if you combine these colors in various combinations, you'll probably get brown.

Well, I happen to like brown.

I would liken the black/white dichotomy to complementary functions, such as Ti and Fe, opposed to conflicting functions. If you wanna make it more precise, imagine that everyone needs white and black, and also that everyone needs a triangle and a circle. Say a person has a black triangle and a white circle, and someone presents them with a white triangle. The white triangle will be competing with the black triangle for the "triangle space" and also compete with the white circle for the "white space".

But using your original analogy: It's more like a person needs black to survive, and anything that deviates from black is less than optimal. Sure gray isn't as bad as white, but it's still not as good as black.


But you might say that if you're trying to concentrate on something, you want a very pure kind of thought. You don't want to be thinking about feelings and social kinds of things while doing a math test. Of course people need to concentrate sometimes. But that's only one aspect of life. It seems to me pretty narrow to only focus on the ego block.

Since when am I focused only on the ego block? I'm basically saying that the "super-id" functions are strong in addition to the "ego" bloc and that the "super-ego" and "id" functions are weak.

And the truth is, F doesn't equal emotion and T doesn't equal logic - while the two very closely resemble (in how they operate) emotion and logic respectively, there are "emotions" associated with all of a person's functions and how their functions work together. I used to think that T=logic and F=emotion, but the more I've observed it the more I've realized that those functions aren't that limited. There are many Ti/Te ego types that are quite illogical and many Fe/Fi ego types that would school them at logic.


As to the idea that people are only able to interact successfully within a certain quadra....well, that may be nice in theory, but in practice people are just a lot more complex.


I also want to note though that I can get along fine with people who have opposite functions than me, as long as we're all open minded and not too quick to make short-sighted judgments.

Wynch
06-10-2008, 05:05 AM
Tomorrow I hope to put together a more detailed version of my thoughts on this subject, but for now I'd like to summarize the point I believe Steve is trying to make that seems to be missed:

Socionics is not about how people act, it's about how they take in and work with the world around them. It's about how an individual experiences the world. Where people's actions and tastes come in is how they choose to apply what they are experiencing, which is why sweeping stereotypes and superficial identities are not always true.

The point that Steve (I believe) is trying to make, is that if socionics is about how we're perceiving the world, how we naturally interpret our environment and experiences then it shouldn't be possible to be naturally inclined to opposed information elements. That doesn't mean that we can't learn to mimic these qualities, but it will never be something that we experience in a genuine sense. Because Se is not a part of my Ego or Super-ID, I won't experience it, it's opposed to the way in which I see the world (Ne). That doesn't mean that I can't mimic what I perceive as and Se way of reasoning and understand an Se individual, but I won't view the world through that lens because it doesn't fit my camera. Even when I'm projecting out to my environment in a supposedly Se sense, I'm really channeling my own functions into my own way of dealing with it. I will never use Se. That's foreign to me. If I can see things through all 8 lenses, then what's the point of typing me? I may as well be an Ne-valuing ISTj.

I have a lot more to say on this subject. I will be back tomorrow.

Steve
06-10-2008, 05:06 AM
this leads me to... from the model A perspective, the LIE is the IEI's supervisor because they have the IEI's PoLR, a "weak" function (Te), and the IEI's base, a "strong" function (Ni), as their own base and creative, respectively (TeNi.) in your model, there are no PoLRs (?), or "strong/weak" functions, etc. so why do the intertype relations (including duality) still "work" in your model? how are they determined?

I haven't mentioned any issues I have with the inter-type relations. For the most part they're accurate from what I've observed.

Fwiw I never actually mentioned a "model" that I use. I'm pretty much just conveying an understanding that refines aspects discussed in model A. I certainly believe in the idea of a PoLR and the "weak" role function. Where I disagree with model A is that the Super-Id functions are strong (meaning that the person has an awareness of them), but just not as honed as the ego functions (imagine looking out towards a vast super-id landscape through ego-glasses). The Super-Ego bloc and the Id bloc contain of course "weak" functions, but it's not really good to think of those four functions as "weak", but instead think of how aversely a person reacts to them.

So to explain supervision, which always involves the opposite temperament: An ENTj conveys and processes information with TeNi. An INFp's PoLR is Te, and processes information with NiFe. An ENTj by sharing Ni with the INFp, has a channel into the INFp's world, however with primary Te, the ENTj injects this substance into the INFp's whirlpool that totally messes it up and throws it off. Sure the ENTj doesn't like Fe, but Fe doesn't throw the ENTj off as much as Te throws the INFp off. So I guess the one who's less "damaged" is seen as having the edge.

And of course duality works. Duality involves a person who has a honed awareness of the functions you strongly value but aren't as precise with. Your dual embodies your super-id functions. Whereas when you experience your super-id functions, you're experiencing them through the lens of your ego functions. The ego defines who you are (if you're a static type, you have a static ego and a dynamic super-id). J & P duality is the way it is because J-types tend to control their states and J-types need to find someone who embodies their super-id functions, but still has the J-style of control, while P-types need someone who embodies their super-id functions, but has the more passive experiential nature regarding reality. I've always seen the P-duality as the EPs stagnating and floating around, while IPs are a river. EP logs need a river to float down :)

Steve
06-10-2008, 05:09 AM
Tomorrow I hope to put together a more detailed version of my thoughts on this subject, but for now I'd like to summarize the point I believe Steve is trying to make that seems to be missed:

Socionics is not about how people act, it's about how they take in and work with the world around them. It's about how an individual experiences the world. Where people's actions and tastes come in is how they choose to apply what they are experiencing, which is why sweeping stereotypes and superficial identities are not always true.

The point that Steve (I believe) is trying to make, is that if socionics is about how we're perceiving the world, how we naturally interpret our environment and experiences then it shouldn't be possible to be naturally inclined to opposed information elements. That doesn't mean that we can't learn to mimic these qualities, but it will never be something that we experience in a genuine sense. Because Se is not a part of my Ego or Super-ID, I won't experience it, it's opposed to the way in which I see the world (Ne). That doesn't mean that I can't mimic what I perceive as and Se way of reasoning and understand an Se individual, but I won't view the world through that lens because it doesn't fit my camera. Even when I'm projecting out to my environment in a supposedly Se sense, I'm really channeling my own functions into my own way of dealing with it. I will never use Se. That's foreign to me. If I can see things through all 8 lenses, then what's the point of typing me? I may as well be an Ne-valuing ISTj.

I have a lot more to say on this subject. I will be back tomorrow.

Thanks so much Vero - you summed it up beautifully :)

hellothere
06-10-2008, 05:18 AM
*edit - spoke too soon*

hellothere
06-10-2008, 05:21 AM
If I can see things through all 8 lenses, then what's the point of typing me? I may as well be an Ne-valuing ISTj.


I don't disagree with the gist of your argument, but on this point - maybe the point of typing is to show which lenses you prefer using, which lenses you prefer others' using, and which lenses you are better at using?

JuJu
06-10-2008, 06:13 AM
I don't disagree with the gist of your argument, but on this point - maybe the point of typing is to show which lenses you prefer using, which lenses you prefer others' using, and which lenses you are better at using?

Yeah :) ... So far, it seems that the theory presented by Steve, strrrng, etc is based on disregarding this information, which Model A explains/accounts for.

In Model A, there are 16 distinct types, all of which experience eight functions (every function) very differently and distinctly--some more strongly, some less, etc. mrn0good asks a question that cuts to the heart of this:


If I can see things through all 8 lenses, then what's the point of typing me? I may as well be an Ne-valuing ISTj.

This is the point: a Ne-ISTj experiences all eight functions differently than your type does (ILE, right?) If you’d like to learn how, I’d suggest reading the function-by-function type descriptions by Stratie, Filatova, etc, of both LSI and ILE... (They can be found at wikisocion.org.) They illuminate the differences of how both types experience/manifest the exact same functions. You'll note that they experience/manifest them VERY differently, and to widely varying extents.

Also, just to be clear: note that when I write "experience," I mean (to quote post #91) "how an individual experiences the world;" not "ppl's actions and tastes." I think I understand the reason for mrn0good's misinterpretation of how I used the word, i.e. I asked Steve to give concrete examples of how his theory would account for certain behavior... Note, however, though that I've always meant 'experience' how I mean it here... Just trying be clear. Sorry, lol

Steve, I'm wondering: do you believe that mrn0good's post #91 conveys an accurate assessment of Model A..? If yes, I'd argue that it sums up a very basic misunderstanding of it.

I'll wait to see if any more info is presented about your theory before writing a conclusion... I'm getting a clearer picture, definitely, of its strengths and weaknesses... Peace, -Ju

strrrng
06-10-2008, 06:53 AM
models are poop. 99% of theories are dump. just observe shit and u see where it's at. i've had quite a bit of coffee, so pardon my randomness. but forrall, reality is there. stop bullshitting.

this thread should burn in hell.

mikemex
06-10-2008, 07:10 AM
@Steve:

Logic, in the Ti fashion, is only a way to structure information, to make sure it doesn't contradict itself, etc. It doesn't make an statement true or false by itself, however, which is a common assumption I've observed among Ti types.

For any statement to be true or false, it must contain a valid structure but also be derived from a valid assumption. If you derive a logic argument from an invalid assumption, the result is a logical fallacy, much in the same trend as the medieval discussions about theology.

Now, I believe you're falling into this trap right now. What I see is that you're assuming that:

1.- What a person can do is determined solely by the type.
2.- A "type" is a static structure.
3.- The functions are mutually exclusive.
4.- A non preferred function plays no role in the psyche.

I have the impression that at least one of the assumptions above is false. For example, let's put an example of the ability to drive a car:

A) If everything is determined by the type, then driving must be linked to a function.
B) Those who drive use that function.
C) Both ILE and ESI can drive.

Thing is, C contradicts, in one way or another, pretty much all of the assumptions before. But it is the only verifiable statement (pretty much everyone can drive, despite of type).

I've already got an answer for that, if you want to listen.

Gilly
06-10-2008, 11:34 AM
dude, don't skew the context by saying "in socionics." Functions are functions - that's it.

Functions are a lens through which to interpret human behavior; the functions are structured and defined such that any phenomena can be interpreted through them, whether they are related to the specific forms of human processing that constitute any specific category (strong, weak, conscious, unconscious) of the functions or not. I am trying to show you that Fi is not only relevant and meaningful to those in whom it is "valued" as explained by Socionics, but the way in which the information element can be interpreted is widely applicable, and if you are only looking at "valued Fi" when you look at Fi, you are missing two thirds of the picture.

It might be more helpful for you to look at it this way.

Everyone uses Fi. Everyone experiences Fi. However, the context that Socionics places on "valued" Fi is such that the approach to matters relating to the "internal statics of fields" value those components of the interaction more than they value the "internal dynamics of objects." An Fi "relationship" can be focused on either Fi OR Fe, but regardless, we all experience Fi and appreciate it in one form or another.

It probably would have been more effective of me to point out that steve seemed to be referencing his dislike of valued Fi>Fe behavior without properly indicating what he meant, rather than passing an overly harsh judgment on his statement.


btw, how is a continuous thing static? I agree about the definitions of internal and fields, but that doesn't mean Fi is all those traits.

Static implies that there is continuity in the structure or nature (subject or object, respectively) of a thing that is constant throughout at least some period of time; it is static, ie doesn't change, for some period of time. Dynamic functions focus rather on what is impermanent, what is actively changing, without regards to what is consistent through time.

Khola
06-10-2008, 12:13 PM
NO YOU ARE!!

Wynch
06-10-2008, 01:56 PM
Now, I believe you're falling into this trap right now. What I see is that you're assuming that:

1.- What a person can do is determined solely by the type.

It's not about what, it's about how. How do people do things. How do people see things. How do people process things. Claiming that one type is physically incapable of something another type can physically do is absolutely ridiculous. We're discussing how they will approach individual tasks.


2.- A "type" is a static structure.
Yes, of course we're going to look at it from static observations and interpretation, we can't help that, it's who we are. Still, I think Steve has done a pretty good job of demonstrating that socionics should be considered as a static application to a dynamic body.


3.- The functions are mutually exclusive.

How can functions that are in complete opposition of each other and the way in which they process not be mutually exclusive? It's like running on a treadmill, you're doing something, but you're not going anywhere.


4.- A non preferred function plays no role in the psyche.

Yup, that's a very generalized view of what we're trying to say.


I have the impression that at least one of the assumptions above is false. For example, let's put an example of the ability to drive a car:

A) If everything is determined by the type, then driving must be linked to a function.
B) Those who drive use that function.
C) Both ILE and ESI can drive.

This is where you completely miss the point. Functions are not a matter of who can physically do what. Everything is determined by type in that the ways we approach the world as individuals will change from type to type. Because we're seeing it differently. That has absolutely nothing to do with linking individual actions to types, nor has it anything to do with linking individual actions to functions. For your driving example, it just means that I will be seeing things and doing things in a different way (maybe not physically, but internally, certainly) from ESI.

Wynch
06-10-2008, 02:38 PM
This is the point: a Ne-ISTj experiences all eight functions differently than your type does (ILE, right?) If you’d like to learn how, I’d suggest reading the function-by-function type descriptions by Stratie, Filatova, etc, of both LSI and ILE... (They can be found at wikisocion.org.) They illuminate the differences of how both types experience/manifest the exact same functions. You'll note that they experience/manifest them VERY differently, and to widely varying extents.

This is precisely what we're trying to say. Except that instead of trying to claim that we're experiencing all these functions in ways that are completely different from what those functions are in someone who values them, we're saying that it is misdefined. We are NOT experiencing those functions, we're creating a similar process using our own functions. It's like...If I was born without hearing I need to find a new way to communicate with people. So I learn to read lips. In a sense, I'm hearing them, but in reality I'm applying completely different skills in order to communicate. It looks like I hear you, but I'm not actually hearing anything.


Also, just to be clear: note that when I write "experience," I mean (to quote post #91) "how an individual experiences the world;" not "ppl's actions and tastes." I think I understand the reason for mrn0good's misinterpretation of how I used the word, i.e. I asked Steve to give concrete examples of how his theory would account for certain behavior... Note, however, though that I've always meant 'experience' how I mean it here... Just trying be clear. Sorry, lol

Steve, I'm wondering: do you believe that mrn0good's post #91 conveys an accurate assessment of Model A..? If yes, I'd argue that it sums up a very basic misunderstanding of it.

I'll wait to see if any more info is presented about your theory before writing a conclusion... I'm getting a clearer picture, definitely, of its strengths and weaknesses... Peace, -Ju

What Steve has been trying to say for the last 3 or 4 posts is that he's not trying to suggest a new model at all. He's just explaining that he believes that the way people are understanding the model is wrong, thus leading to some misapplications of typing methods. It's not so much that Model A is wrong so much as it is misleading. It is poorly defined and therefore frequently misused. Additionally, so long as Model A functions on the premise that people are actually experiencing true forms of all 8 functions, it is working on what we see as a logical fallacy.

I see what Steve was saying about your need for proof now. It's not a matter of what is written. Written word does not mean fact. Type theory is partially observed and partially a construct built on an abstract foundation. It's built because people saw a system, wondered at the how logical it was, observed and considered other aspects, and adjusted it from there. If everyone followed what was simply written we would all take these types at face value like MBTI and say that I, an ENTP, am an outgoing, instinctively intelligent, abstract thinker, which is only partially true. What we're saying is Model A is partially true, but people are missing an essential point. No one is saying that we're 100% without a doubt right, but we've observed something that we believe is a flaw and are trying to adjust for it. We (and by we I really mean I've joined the camp of Steve and Strrrng and decided that their arguments encompass my own thoughts on the matter) just want people to give us a logically valid argument as to how we can experience 8 functions when half of them will always be opposed to the ones we value most. Things that are too similar yet dissimilar will always run parallel and if they get too close, the combination will repel. To say that we can experience all eight functions together, genuinely, with any kind of harmony more or less undermines the idea of quadras, dualization and most of intertype relation as well. We just want to people to recognize our argument and give us a logically cohesive argument that is not based on quoting the people we're calling into question. Think for yourself.

strrrng
06-10-2008, 02:58 PM
FUCK THIS THREAD I HATE IT

Expat
06-10-2008, 03:05 PM
FUCK THIS THREAD I HATE IT

Then, um, I don't know -- what about, "don't read it?"

strrrng
06-10-2008, 04:39 PM
Then, um, I don't know -- what about, "don't read it?"

The problem is that I'm blindly idealistic (omfg he's SUCH a beta NF!!!). Whenever I see that an addition has been made to this thread, a surge of energy ripples throughout me and I get all happy and hopeful! But then I open up the page, only to see that it is either a fabrication/misconception or something entirely unrelated to the idea at hand.

Not only that, but I feel EXTREMELY bad for Steve. He is far more genuine than me in his approach of conveying ideas and creating harmony with people. This was a completely altruistic effort on his part, albeit with a touch of knowingness, that was answered (surprisingly) with people hiding behind stupid, externally-defined standards such as "classical" socionics and mentioning names of "respected" socionists.

What this comes down to is how much people are willing to free themselves from their a prioris about how they think the functions "are" in "reality." As I told Gilligan earlier, one must start with observation within experience, THEN create concepts to model that experience, all-the-while remembering that these concepts will continually be redefined as more observations are gained. Steve is illustrating concepts that he has consistently observed in reality, yet people don't want to accept it because it doesn't agree with some bullshit ad hypotheses they have memorized.


THE BAY AREA BITCH!

Expat
06-10-2008, 05:14 PM
I suppose you don't even consider the possibility that some people's own experiences, and observations, have confirmed the validity of those bullshit hypotheses, and that's why they don't see the need to be "freed" from them?

strrrng
06-10-2008, 05:53 PM
I suppose you don't even consider the possibility that some people's own experiences, and observations, have confirmed the validity of those bullshit hypotheses, and that's why they don't see the need to be "freed" from them?

Did I say that? NO. I was referring to an attitude I saw manifesting specifically in this thread.

Steve
06-10-2008, 06:11 PM
This is precisely what we're trying to say. Except that instead of trying to claim that we're experiencing all these functions in ways that are completely different from what those functions are in someone who values them, we're saying that it is misdefined. We are NOT experiencing those functions, we're creating a similar process using our own functions. It's like...If I was born without hearing I need to find a new way to communicate with people. So I learn to read lips. In a sense, I'm hearing them, but in reality I'm applying completely different skills in order to communicate. It looks like I hear you, but I'm not actually hearing anything.

Perfect analogy - I would add that in this case hearing also takes away from our ability to perceive the senses that are vital to us.


What Steve has been trying to say for the last 3 or 4 posts is that he's not trying to suggest a new model at all. He's just explaining that he believes that the way people are understanding the model is wrong, thus leading to some misapplications of typing methods. It's not so much that Model A is wrong so much as it is misleading. It is poorly defined and therefore frequently misused. Additionally, so long as Model A functions on the premise that people are actually experiencing true forms of all 8 functions, it is working on what we see as a logical fallacy.

Yes, and it's not only a logical fallacy in theory - it smacks people in the face in reality all the time.


What we're saying is Model A is partially true, but people are missing an essential point. No one is saying that we're 100% without a doubt right, but we've observed something that we believe is a flaw and are trying to adjust for it. We (and by we I really mean I've joined the camp of Steve and Strrrng and decided that their arguments encompass my own thoughts on the matter) just want people to give us a logically valid argument as to how we can experience 8 functions when half of them will always be opposed to the ones we value most. Things that are too similar yet dissimilar will always run parallel and if they get too close, the combination will repel. To say that we can experience all eight functions together, genuinely, with any kind of harmony more or less undermines the idea of quadras, dualization and most of intertype relation as well.

Right.


As I told Gilligan earlier, one must start with observation within experience, THEN create concepts to model that experience, all-the-while remembering that these concepts will continually be redefined as more observations are gained.

That's exactly it. Socionics was created to describe reality and needs to be open to revision as more observations are made. Revision based on new observation is not a new concept. It happens in science all the time, such as with Einstein's general relativity for example, which resolved some of the inconsistencies in previous theories of gravity. And now there are theories that seek to resolve inconsistencies in situations such as black holes where the laws of general relativity break down, and of course there's quantum mechanics.

Jonathan
06-10-2008, 09:04 PM
Since when am I focused only on the ego block? I'm basically saying that the "super-id" functions are strong in addition to the "ego" bloc and that the "super-ego" and "id" functions are weak.

So it seems what you're rejecting, then, is the idea that the "ego" and "id" functions are strong, the "ego" and "super-ego" functions are to some extent more in one's conscious awareness, and the "ego" and "super-ego" functions are in a certain sense "valued."

But how can you be sure? One of the most fundamental concepts in Socionics is that the super-id functions are both "weak" and "valued," meaning that one isn't confident in them but finds them highly relevant to one's agenda (and therefore seeks out people who are strong in that area).

But you're saying that super-id is "strong." Maybe you mean something different by "strong" than what Augusta meant. But if not, how do you know that she was wrong about this?

Jonathan
06-10-2008, 09:27 PM
What I mean by translate is to take information from a non-valued function and try to make sense of it using your valued functions. In this attempted translation, much meaning is lost. The best that can happen is that a person interprets the information into something that vaguely resembles the information from the non-quadra functions, a lot of time missing the actual point.

As to translation...that's a very useful concept, and one of the few aspects of Socionics that really hasn't gotten much airtime on the forum. I can see lots of examples....For example, a person with ego-block Fe may "imitate" Te by acting "serious" or "hard." Or a person with ego-block Ti may "imitate" Fi through a set of rules. Personally, I think this is more than just translation...I think that in viewing some IM elements through other ones, there are real insights, even some degree of connection.

But anyhow, this leads to another question, which is: is the fact that people translate the super-ego functions into their own ego block functions caused because people can't experience the super-ego functions directly, or because they don't want to?

See, I take the position that it's because people don't want to and would have difficulty doing it (most of the time), but at certain strange moments people are able to act outside of their "normal" mode.

Steve
06-10-2008, 09:42 PM
But how can you be sure? One of the most fundamental concepts in Socionics is that the super-id functions are both "weak" and "valued," meaning that one isn't confident in them but finds them highly relevant to one's agenda (and therefore seeks out people who are strong in that area).

But you're saying that super-id is "strong." Maybe you mean something different by "strong" than what Augusta meant. But if not, how do you know that she was wrong about this?

Maybe I do use a different definition of the word strong than she did. I'm defining a "strong" function as anything a person has an awareness of. What differentiates the way I view the Ego bloc vs the Super-Id bloc is that a person's awareness of the ego functions is more honed and precise while their awareness of the Super-Id bloc is more spread out (see my analogy about looking out at your super-id broad landscape through the ego lens). A person looks to their dual to have the precision with those Super-Id functions that they themselves have with their Ego functions.

For example I am very aware of Si phenomenon and can comment on them at great length, but ISFps and ESFjs seem to focus it and bring it down to something more well-defined and precise for me.

Think of each quadra having a "quadra energy" whizzing throughout a room with four corners. Each type leans towards one of the four corners (Ep, Ip, Ij, Ej), but is still experiencing and is connected to that gestalt quadra energy flow.

strrrng
06-10-2008, 11:07 PM
that's fine, but they're still Steve's own conceptions of reality, not everybody else's. it seems like what you're saying is, everybody is ignoring the "truth" and stubbornly holding onto something that is blatantly wrong in you and Steve's eyes, and you and Steve have the "truth"... I don't think that's really fair of you to say. it's just that what you and Steve are saying isn't consistent with their own perceptions/observations/etc., that's why they're not accepting it. why criticize them for that?

If the main critics on this thread (you know who you are) were speaking primarily from observation, we wouldn't have had stupid shit thrown around about how this idea doesn't agree with "classical" socionics, how we should ask Rick or Filatova what they thing, etc.

JuJu
06-10-2008, 11:47 PM
It's not only a logical fallacy in theory - it smacks people in the face in reality all the time.


I suppose you don't even consider the possibility that some people's own experiences, and observations, have confirmed the validity of those bullshit hypotheses, and that's why they don't see the need to be "freed" from them?

First, I want to say that I’m genuinely sorry if I came across as a jerk to you guys at any point in this thread… I didn’t mean to come across that way… (I might just naturally be a jerk, lol—that’d suck!) In parts, the tone of this argument has made be kinda uncomfortable, definitely—I was hoping it wouldn’t go that route, but yeah... It is what it is. (hi babe! Love you.)

What I haven’t expressed really is that I’m mostly in agreement with Steve, strrrng, etc. The reason I’ve pursued this ‘argument’ is because I’ve wanted to see if the idea could explain/account for my only reservation with it, i.e. a person’s incapability of using/experiencing ‘genuinely’ the non-quadra functions—even to the slightest degree, even under unusual circumstances, etc. I kept asking essentially the same question because I really wanted to know, haha—not to show up anyone, or anything like that, which is how it seems it was interpreted.

I agree with Steve, strrrng, etc, that we convert most of our understanding/experience/whatever anyone wants to call it to our quadra functions—that has been my experience. Also, as to Socionics’ shortcomings and Model A’s shortcomings—Steve and strrrng’s critique is a valid one… And an important one for Socionics. People—and here it’s up to those of us who care about this stuff—could do a better job of explaining/defining how each type experiences the functions. (I kinda suspect that there’s a lot of Russian material that hasn’t been translated well, which has contributed to this… At least here in the non-Russian speaking world anyway—maybe the material there is poorly defined as well.)

My reservation has been this—it’d be easiest to tell it in a story, I guess, (I’ll make it short, lol.) During my life, in many situations, non-quadra values have been very important, even dominant, I’d say. For example, my family and living situation at boarding school placed a lot of emphasis on Se… My graduate program in the History of Science placed a lot of emphasis on Ti, as did certain courses as an undergrad, one of which I talked about in this thread… Someone said about experiencing non-quadra functions (I’m paraphrasing) “it looks like I hear you, but I don’t really hear you.” What I found is, with repeat exposure to those experiences, I began to ‘hear’ them. My experience of them literally changed... They’re not my natural way of doing things, for sure, and yeah, now I mostly convert Ti and Se—now that I’m out of those situations I’m experiencing things more like Steve and strrrng would expect… But yeah, during those times I did not convert those experiences—I was right there with em, if you know what I mean, they were natural.

That might be an exceptional case; what they’re saying might be true for 99%. (It’s pretty close to accurate for me these days, definitely.)For me though, the idea doesn’t seem to explain those situations… Despite all of its flaws, Model A can account for it.

So in conclusion, I don’t believe Steve or strrrng to be lying, i.e. I believe that what they’re writing reflects their experiences in their lives… What they see as a logical fallacy though (I almost spelled fallacy with a ph, lol,) I regard as something possible. Maybe it’s something very unlikely... But I wouldn’t be being honest if I didn’t say I experienced it how I’ve written.

I’m hoping that maybe the idea takes experiences like mine into account… If it does, and the definitions of how one experiences functions make sense, I can lend my support to it... Not that that matters or should to any of you though. Peace, -Justin

Steve
06-10-2008, 11:48 PM
it's just that what you and Steve are saying isn't consistent with their own perceptions/observations/etc., that's why they're not accepting it. why criticize them for that?

No one has discussed any of their own observations/perceptions about the functions at all. I've been asking people to do so from the beginning. I warmly welcome them. No one has actually given any specific experiential evidence to oppose my observations (Justin gave a general example from his physics class and I analyzed it and he didn't discuss it further - other than that, there's been nothing).

Steve
06-11-2008, 12:15 AM
First, I want to say that I’m genuinely sorry if I came across as a jerk to you guys at any point in this thread… I didn’t mean to come across that way… (I might just naturally be a jerk, lol—that’d suck!) In parts, the tone of this argument has made be kinda uncomfortable, definitely—I was hoping it wouldn’t go that route, but yeah... It is what it is. (hi babe! Love you.)

What I haven’t expressed really is that I’m mostly in agreement with Steve, strrrng, etc. The reason I’ve pursued this ‘argument’ is because I’ve wanted to see if the idea could explain/account for my only reservation with it, i.e. a person’s incapability of using/experiencing ‘genuinely’ the non-quadra functions—even to the slightest degree, even under unusual circumstances, etc. I kept asking essentially the same question because I really wanted to know, haha—not to show up anyone, or anything like that, which is how it seems it was interpreted.

Justin I appreciate you clarifying this. I'm sorry if I came across the same way. Basically the reason I kept probing to try to get you for your experience with the functions is because that's the only way to figure out how you actually view the functions, and to see if you actually view the functions the same way I do, otherwise we'd be comparing apples and oranges. In this latest post you gave some experiential stuff, which I'm glad about, and I'll address that below.


I agree with Steve, strrrng, etc, that we convert most of our understanding/experience/whatever anyone wants to call it to our quadra functions—that has been my experience. Also, as to Socionics’ shortcomings and Model A’s shortcomings—Steve and strrrng’s critique is a valid one… And an important one for Socionics. People—and here it’s up to those of us who care about this stuff—could do a better job of explaining/defining how each type experiences the functions. (I kinda suspect that there’s a lot of Russian material that hasn’t been translated well, which has contributed to this… At least here in the non-Russian speaking world anyway—maybe the material there is poorly defined as well.)

Right - good points.


My reservation has been this—it’d be easiest to tell it in a story, I guess, (I’ll make it short, lol.) During my life, in many situations, non-quadra values have been very important, even dominant, I’d say. For example, my family and living situation at boarding school placed a lot of emphasis on Se… My graduate program in the History of Science placed a lot of emphasis on Ti, as did certain courses as an undergrad, one of which I talked about in this thread… Someone said about experiencing non-quadra functions (I’m paraphrasing) “it looks like I hear you, but I don’t really hear you.” What I found is, with repeat exposure to those experiences, I began to ‘hear’ them. My experience of them literally changed... They’re not my natural way of doing things, for sure, and yeah, now I mostly convert Ti and Se—now that I’m out of those situations I’m experiencing things more like Steve and strrrng would expect… But yeah, during those times I did not convert those experiences—I was right there with em, if you know what I mean, they were natural.

That might be an exceptional case; what they’re saying might be true for 99%. (It’s pretty close to accurate for me these days, definitely.)For me though, the idea doesn’t seem to explain those situations… Despite all of its flaws, Model A can account for it.

So in conclusion, I don’t believe Steve or strrrng to be lying, i.e. I believe that what they’re writing reflects their experiences in their lives… What they see as a logical fallacy though (I almost spelled fallacy with a ph, lol,) I regard as something possible. Maybe it’s something very unlikely... But I wouldn’t be being honest if I didn’t say I experienced it how I’ve written.

Okay NOW we can actually have a discussion, because we have experience to talk about.


For example, my family and living situation at boarding school placed a lot of emphasis on Se… My graduate program in the History of Science placed a lot of emphasis on Ti, as did certain courses as an undergrad, one of which I talked about in this thread…

Could you describe the situations a bit more? (I understand if you don't want to reveal personal details, that's fine). I'm just interested to get a sense of the situations. What seemed Se and Ti about them in your opinion?

Thanks for this post and for clarifying your position. Peace.

strrrng
06-11-2008, 12:18 AM
I find Justin's situation entirely plausible. Humans are adaptable creatures.

Steve
06-11-2008, 12:37 AM
I find Justin's situation entirely plausible. Humans are adaptable creatures.

Yeah people are definitely capable of adapting to different things. And even if you notice between two friends that when they get to know each other and get close, they take on some characteristics of each other.

In this case I don't know if functions themselves can rub off on people, or if instead the social-context and mindset can allow people to open up and understand that the situation (using the unvalued functions) isn't as bad as they originally thought it was. I'm thinking that it's not the functions themselves that transfer over but instead that the person gets used to the environment and context created by people using the unvalued functions. I'm not positive yet - it's a potentially very interesting area to explore further.

Strrrng though even with you and me, some of your things/ways of looking things have rubbed off on me, but I still process things with my own functions, so that's the way I'm leaning right now. I feel like Justin could've gotten the sense of the "Si" of those situations and find harmony with it by reconciling external factors, making it seem like he's adopted the functions. I've experienced that before too with Betas and Gammas, but then something will happen and that "harmony" will be shaken and I end up realizing that it was a temporary harmony based on some external things and not actually changing the core functions.

Jonathan
06-12-2008, 09:40 PM
Yeah people are definitely capable of adapting to different things. And even if you notice between two friends that when they get to know each other and get close, they take on some characteristics of each other.

In this case I don't know if functions themselves can rub off on people, or if instead the social-context and mindset can allow people to open up and understand that the situation (using the unvalued functions) isn't as bad as they originally thought it was. I'm thinking that it's not the functions themselves that transfer over but instead that the person gets used to the environment and context created by people using the unvalued functions. I'm not positive yet - it's a potentially very interesting area to explore further.

Strrrng though even with you and me, some of your things/ways of looking things have rubbed off on me, but I still process things with my own functions, so that's the way I'm leaning right now. I feel like Justin could've gotten the sense of the "Si" of those situations and find harmony with it by reconciling external factors, making it seem like he's adopted the functions. I've experienced that before too with Betas and Gammas, but then something will happen and that "harmony" will be shaken and I end up realizing that it was a temporary harmony based on some external things and not actually changing the core functions.


If it's not the functions that "transfer over," then by what mechanism would the person get "used to the environment"? Everything you've observed here seems perfectly consistent with the idea that one may make use of the unvalued functions a little bit for short intervals, but that you greatly prefer to use your valued functions instead.