When giving a speech, askers tell "a lot of short phrases" , ask rhetorical questions, answer those rhetorical questions, and they make frequent stops.
Declarers tell a "big phrase", with no stops.
Am I right?
Printable View
When giving a speech, askers tell "a lot of short phrases" , ask rhetorical questions, answer those rhetorical questions, and they make frequent stops.
Declarers tell a "big phrase", with no stops.
Am I right?
That's what the theory says. I don't personally believe in this one. But you rephrased it accurately, IMO.
Declarer = +field function, -object function
Asker = +object function, -field function
If, like me, you don't believe in object/field, the above is useless.
Declarer = what Aristocrat Statics and Democrat Dynamics have in common
Asker = what Democrat Statics and Aristocrat Dynamics have in common
That doesn't spark my imagination either.
Interestingly, though, when using DarkAngelFireWolf69's "opposite signs hypothesis" or whatever it's supposed to be called, denoting a type with the opposite sign functions of it's contrary, you get something interesting: Declarer types of adjacent quadras that are the same in Rational/Irrational are made to seem very similar. This opens the view of having a person transfer between the two mentalities associated with these types. Appearently, it's the Declarer/Asker dichotomy that is stable in this process.
This concludes today's theoretical ramble.
I don't know. I've never given a speech before. However I am pretty good with the one-liners or short and subtle observations. I believe in object and field functions. That is one of the few aspects of how socionics is organized, how the functions are defined. If you don't refer to it, you base definitions upon something irrelevant, like how anyone feels they have a "decent" enough explanation of a function, yet their explanation has nothing to do with that function, as if they've mixed them up. Yes these kind of keypoints help me memorize systems.