What the people here don't seem to get.
If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.
Re: What the people here don't seem to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitta
If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.
sounds wrong. can't originality take different forms? can't various functions support (or at the very least, not contradict) the essential qualities which define originality?
Re: What the people here don't seem to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitta
If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.
I don't really understand what you're getting at. But it seems to me that you have associated "valuing (or not valuing) originality" with one (or more) of the +/- dichotomies for particular IM elements. Whichever one(s) it is, ILEs and IEIs must share it. (That's my guess anyway.)
Remembering the type descriptions you posted before it seems like you would often say something along the lines of "like Xs, Ys have -Wi, and therefore like Xs, Ys enjoy staring at the wall for long periods of time." (Where X and Y are 2 different socionics types and Wi is an IM element)
Now I feel like you're saying, "both Xs and Ys value staring at the wall for long periods of time. It's a fact. They can't each value this and not value the same IM element (the one contributing to a fondness for staring at walls). Therefore, both Xs and Ys have (or, rather "value") the -Wi, and that's why they love staring at walls. This is the fundamental principle behind everything I've been saying all along!"
But it seems that you created these definitions/associations in the first place, and this post of yours is just you verifying your own reasoning to yourself. What I don't see is where it actually connects to the real world.
I mean, if I decide that a=b in my own mind (not based on anything real or sufficiently verified), and then come across the revelation that b=a in my mind as well, that doesn't mean that b and a are *actually* equivalent, just that it's consistent in my own mind the way I defined it.
I can't seem to connect to your ideas for the most part because of this sort of thing... I feel like you arbitrarily define things, and then prove it backwards and forwards to yourself in this "I believe it, therefore it is" sort of way... and then you come up with stuff like all ESIs are hateful and bitter (because they value the + or - whatever)... And then I have a hard time seeing any validity in it at all.
Also, I don't see why valuing originality has to stem from valuing a particular IM element. I also get the feeling that you think that everything under the sun can be explained via Socionics... and I don't think that everything can be (at least not well)... For instance, I think that anyone can "value originality" or be "original" or "non-conformist" (etc.) regardless of their type... although the *way* in which they are or aren't original may be colored by their type...
Maybe it depends on what specifically you mean by "originality."
Re: What the people here don't seem to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitta
If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.
Everyone values and uses every information element, but that doesn't mean that they value them all equally. "Value" as defined by the English can confuse things when we talk about "not valuing" an information element. When talking about Socionics, we have to take the word "value" within a particular context. When someone doesn't value an information element, it only means that (s)he values that axis more than the other axis of its kind (rational or irrational).
Re: What the people here don't seem to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitta
They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time.
Who else writes like that? Let me think, let me think --
And yes -- you're wasting your time.
Re: What the people here don't seem to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitta
If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.
Not completely. An IEI values Ni over Ne; an ILE is the opposite.
However, both the IEI and the ILE value Ti and Fe. They are simply inept respectively at using them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
I think you take the +/- thing too far.
I agree. Especially after Expat laid it out for me.
It is not classical socionics. Lay off it, hitta. It doesn't aid the theory in any way.
Re: What the people here don't seem to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitta
If two different types have similarities they have to share a common function. Thats what the concept of function is, differences in behavior. If all the functions were the same they wouldn't be so different would they. So take an ENTp, ENTps value originality. Also, take an INFp, they value originality. How could you possibly say that these two types don't share a link when they both value the same thing. They HAVE to value the same function. It HAS to be this way. If you can't see this, then I am wasting my time. This is the fundamental idea behind all of my ideas. You can't say, while using logic, that two different functions behave the same way. This wouldn't make sense.
Your logic overall makes sense, to the extent that your system has a certain internal consistency. But your premises are very specific, and it may be a mistake to equate them fully with that of other Socionic systems.
One thing I'm sure you can understand is that there are some qualities that may not be type-related. For example, some ENTps have red hair, and some INFps do too, but that doesn't mean it's because their ego block functions match.
Also, a core postulate in traditional Socionics is that Xe and Xi have similarities....that is, Ne and Ni have some things in common. If it weren't so, there would be no basis for the concept in Model A that one's 7th and 8th functions are "strong" (though not quadra values). The idea that they're strong comes from the idea that, for example, if one is capable at Ni, one must also be capable at Ne (even if one doesn't chose to emphasize it), because they're so inter-related. I understand that statement make little sense in the context of your system, because in your system it doesn't make sense to talk about IM elements without a + or - sign, and because your system defines the IM elements more as overall values, and not as much as specific cognitive skills. But the point is that if you think outside your specific system, then it is entirely possible to conceive of similarities between types that aren't due to having the same IM elements in the ego-block or as quadra-values.
That doesn't mean that you're wrong to want to conceive of a system where all key similarities in the areas you're interested in are produced by matching quadra values. But it won't necessarily match the Socionics other people are talking about, particularly since a lot of people wouldn't necessary agree with your observations regarding which types are "original" and which ones aren't.