A Metaphor for Fe

A while before joining this forum, I discovered Expat's metaphorical descriptions of the information elements, as experienced by their base types. I found them very helpful in getting a 'sense' of the elements (thanks, Expat! :) ).

However, as time went on and I thought about it some more, the Fe metaphor of "fog" started to feel less and less satisfying. It felt more like a Fi-valuer's description of Fe, for some inexplicable reason ( ;) ). Anyway, long story short, I had an epiphany at work today, and have an idea for a better description of Fe.

Let us take Expat's excellent description of Fi as a starting point. Laser beams representing relationships connect everybody; when the relationship is good, the laser beam is blue, when it's bad, it's red.

Expat went on to describe Fe as a sort of coloured fog filling the spaces between people, emitted by the people themselves who 'smoke'. The fog reveals the lasers and helps them to be seen. I don't think this is quite accurate. Fe is described as "internal dynamics of objects", and this fog seems more like a description of some kind of dynamic field.

Here is how I would describe Fe:

While everyone is walking around with these laser beams connecting them, they also have another light source: a sort of internal 'glow', which is Fe. Like the laser beams, this glow can be different colours: blue for positive emotions, red for negative emotions, etc. Unlike the laser beams, however, this light is constantly shifting and changing: now I'm blue and happy, now I'm red and angry, etc.

For base Fe types, this light is very bright. You often hear ESEs, for example, described as "lighting up the room" when they enter (at least by those who value Fe ;) ). Base Fe types are very good at revealing and controlling this light, hiding their unpleasant red light when necessary and revealing their fun blue light when appropriate. They're also very good at seeing the light emitted by others. When an Fe type enters a room, they see the combined glow emitted by everyone there; this is where the sense of Fe being the "mood of the room" comes from.

Fe valuing types love being around people emitting 'blue' light. The colour of the laser beams is not seen as being as important as the colour of a person's Fe glow. Being connected by blue laser beams with people simply means that those people will be more likely to emit blue light when they're around, which is all Fe valuers are really after anyway. When red light appears, they feel the cause of it should be rooted out with Ti, and dealt with. Then the fun blue light can return.

Types weak in Fe have a harder time seeing and displaying this light. They can't always tell the difference between genuine light and fake light. Fe-PoLR types find strong Fe light unpleasant, and avoid it ("It burns us!"). They also mask any light they might have inside, closing it off from the world. This confuses Fe base types, who assume that they must simply be hiding a bunch of angry red light.

Fi valuers see the Fe glow simply as one way to determine the status of the laser beam between them: if one person consistantly reacts to another person with genuine blue light, then the laser beam between them must be blue, and vice versa. However, the Fe light is fickle and ever-changing, so they don't find it to be very reliable.

So that was my idea. What are everyone's thoughts on it, especially base Fe types?

I think this is good, and an improvement on Expat's description. I've course, I'm one of those who can mistake yellow construction paper for the sun. :)

Let's see... extending this to :Te: and :Ti: a la Ti... :Ti: is boxes. The boxes contain stuff; they're organized and stacked on top of each other, and when enough stuff is put in boxes, empty spaces start to stand out where we don't have any boxes yet. :Ne: creatives will deal will pack the empty spaces with properly labeled empty boxes, in anticipation of finding the thing that goes there. Sometimes we'll talk as though we've already found it, because we know that it exists - the box is there, isn't it?

*Not talking about myself from here down, or anyone I've observed very closely - might be wrong*

:Se: creatives will look at the empty spaces and say "Those spaces are empty"; they'll mark the floor maybe, and certainly not put anything there that doesn't belong there, but they won't mark any boxes until they've found the thing to put in the box.

On the other hand, :Te: is a busy warehouse; things are constantly going in and out, and organization is based on how the things will be used. :Ti: is a warehouse for long-term storage and cataloging; space efficiency is important here. :Te: is a warehouse for constant use, with no dusty corners. Retrieval efficiency, not space efficiency, is the important thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

A while before joining this forum, I discovered Expat's metaphorical descriptions of the information elements, as experienced by their base types. I found them very helpful in getting a 'sense' of the elements (thanks, Expat! :) ).

However, as time went on and I thought about it some more, the Fe metaphor of "fog" started to feel less and less satisfying. It felt more like a Fi-valuer's description of Fe, for some inexplicable reason ( ;) ). Anyway, long story short, I had an epiphany at work today, and have an idea for a better description of Fe.

---

Let's face it. Fog is not as cool as laser beams. But the description sounds good. I may expand upon it later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

You often hear ESEs, for example, described as "lighting up the room" when they enter (at least by those who value Fe ;) ).

---

You just can't entrust them with matches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carla

Fe PoLRs are the gremlins? :)

---

A black hole emitting a gamma-ray burst
http://www.space-art.co.uk/images/artwork/other/GRB.jpg

I had a neighbor who suspected I was a vampire for real. He asked me questions like:"you must not like garlic?" etc., and I mean out nowhere, I have never said anything at all about garlic.

EDIT: I just noticed that the picture was made by a guy called Garlick, hidden connections everywhere!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aixelsyd

From your user title to ava to the post, there is something strangely epic about it all.

---

I just had to log in and check out if I won Viking lottery, that was held earlier today. All these omens, but no win :(

But going by this theory, doesn't that suggest that Fe types would be the brightest around people they have the most positive blue lazer beams? In my experience, Fe types I have good relationships with don't necessarily act that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shakealittle

But going by this theory, doesn't that suggest that Fe types would be the brightest around people they have the most positive blue lazer beams? In my experience, Fe types I have good relationships with don't necessarily act that way.

---

That's not necessarily the case. Fe is influenced by a lot of factors, not just laser beam colours. A hard day at work, winning the lottery, just saw a cute puppy... there are many reasons for the shifting Fe moods. Around someone with a very blue laser (a very close relationship) an Fe type might even feel free to express some of their more serious, private emotions.

Plus, the blue and red lasers are just an example -- in reality, there's also pink, yellow, chartreuse, lime green, forest green, plaid, etc. ad nauseum. There's so many subtleties of mood, and so many things that influence mood, that you can't really expect a 1:1 correlation of blue Fi laser = blue Fe glow.

I think the "fog" Expat is describing is as much about Si as it is Fe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

I think the "fog" Expat is describing is as much about Si as it is Fe.

---

I was thinking along the same lines, but I need to sort it all out in my head before I post about it. I've been trying to figure out how to metaphorically describe Si and Ni, as they relate to Fe in ESEs and EIEs. Hmm.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

I was thinking along the same lines, but I need to sort it all out in my head before I post about it. I've been trying to figure out how to metaphorically describe Si and Ni, as they relate to Fe in ESEs and EIEs. Hmm.

---

Well, an FeNi would see people's internal states over an extended period of time, monitoring not only their "moods" in the literal sense (the more short-term transience of "moods" is more relevant to Si), but also their longer-reaching internal attitudes, phases of their life, personal development, and see correlations and trends between his own life, lives of other people, and all of the parallels and connections in between. This is why FeNis are often thought of as very "spiritual" people: they are very concerned with and aware of the sort of "internal evolution" that is emphasized in many religious or occult traditions.

Think like this: the extension of an Ni "field" is not in external space and the meshing and physical interactions of the present moment, but rather in the longer term causations and interweavings of events as they unfold in time. Si has to do with "timing," too, in the sense of swinging a baseball bat with the right timing to hit the ball, whereas "Ni timing" is more concerned with seeing things in a sense that is abstracted from our immediate physical perception; hence, over a longer period of time, in a sense that is not related to things physically present, but rather overriding trends in a longer-term sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

I think the "fog" Expat is describing is as much about Si as it is Fe.

---

Yes, since Si is more "free floating" than Ni. But even then, fogs and lasers do not seem to be an appropriate or analogous visual for communicating the differences between Fe and Fi that does both IE justice. Instead of jury-rigging Expat's visual, it might be easier to build up a new one from the ground-up.

I think the laser beam metaphor is good; the difference, I think would be emphasis on the "color" or "shade" of the individual as that moment vs. emphasis on the color or shade of the laser beam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

A while before joining this forum, I discovered Expat's metaphorical descriptions of the information elements, as experienced by their base types. I found them very helpful in getting a 'sense' of the elements (thanks, Expat! :) ).

However, as time went on and I thought about it some more, the Fe metaphor of "fog" started to feel less and less satisfying. It felt more like a Fi-valuer's description of Fe, for some inexplicable reason ( ;) ). Anyway, long story short, I had an epiphany at work today, and have an idea for a better description of Fe.

Let us take Expat's excellent description of Fi as a starting point. Laser beams representing relationships connect everybody; when the relationship is good, the laser beam is blue, when it's bad, it's red.

Expat went on to describe Fe as a sort of coloured fog filling the spaces between people, emitted by the people themselves who 'smoke'. The fog reveals the lasers and helps them to be seen. I don't think this is quite accurate. Fe is described as "internal dynamics of objects", and this fog seems more like a description of some kind of dynamic field.

Here is how I would describe Fe:

While everyone is walking around with these laser beams connecting them, they also have another light source: a sort of internal 'glow', which is Fe. Like the laser beams, this glow can be different colours: blue for positive emotions, red for negative emotions, etc. Unlike the laser beams, however, this light is constantly shifting and changing: now I'm blue and happy, now I'm red and angry, etc.

For base Fe types, this light is very bright. You often hear ESEs, for example, described as "lighting up the room" when they enter (at least by those who value Fe ;) ). Base Fe types are very good at revealing and controlling this light, hiding their unpleasant red light when necessary and revealing their fun blue light when appropriate. They're also very good at seeing the light emitted by others. When an Fe type enters a room, they see the combined glow emitted by everyone there; this is where the sense of Fe being the "mood of the room" comes from.

Fe valuing types love being around people emitting 'blue' light. The colour of the laser beams is not seen as being as important as the colour of a person's Fe glow. Being connected by blue laser beams with people simply means that those people will be more likely to emit blue light when they're around, which is all Fe valuers are really after anyway. When red light appears, they feel the cause of it should be rooted out with Ti, and dealt with. Then the fun blue light can return.

Types weak in Fe have a harder time seeing and displaying this light. They can't always tell the difference between genuine light and fake light. Fe-PoLR types find strong Fe light unpleasant, and avoid it ("It burns us!"). They also mask any light they might have inside, closing it off from the world. This confuses Fe base types, who assume that they must simply be hiding a bunch of angry red light.

Fi valuers see the Fe glow simply as one way to determine the status of the laser beam between them: if one person consistantly reacts to another person with genuine blue light, then the laser beam between them must be blue, and vice versa. However, the Fe light is fickle and ever-changing, so they don't find it to be very reliable.

So that was my idea. What are everyone's thoughts on it, especially base Fe types?

---

So basically Fe-leading types have "emotional infrared". :P

bumping an ancient thread from the distant past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Currere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

A while before joining this forum, I discovered Expat's metaphorical descriptions of the information elements, as experienced by their base types. I found them very helpful in getting a 'sense' of the elements (thanks, Expat! :) ).

However, as time went on and I thought about it some more, the Fe metaphor of "fog" started to feel less and less satisfying. It felt more like a Fi-valuer's description of Fe, for some inexplicable reason ( ;) ). Anyway, long story short, I had an epiphany at work today, and have an idea for a better description of Fe.

Let us take Expat's excellent description of Fi as a starting point. Laser beams representing relationships connect everybody; when the relationship is good, the laser beam is blue, when it's bad, it's red.

Expat went on to describe Fe as a sort of coloured fog filling the spaces between people, emitted by the people themselves who 'smoke'. The fog reveals the lasers and helps them to be seen. I don't think this is quite accurate. Fe is described as "internal dynamics of objects", and this fog seems more like a description of some kind of dynamic field.

Here is how I would describe Fe:

While everyone is walking around with these laser beams connecting them, they also have another light source: a sort of internal 'glow', which is Fe. Like the laser beams, this glow can be different colours: blue for positive emotions, red for negative emotions, etc. Unlike the laser beams, however, this light is constantly shifting and changing: now I'm blue and happy, now I'm red and angry, etc.

For base Fe types, this light is very bright. You often hear ESEs, for example, described as "lighting up the room" when they enter (at least by those who value Fe ;) ). Base Fe types are very good at revealing and controlling this light, hiding their unpleasant red light when necessary and revealing their fun blue light when appropriate. They're also very good at seeing the light emitted by others. When an Fe type enters a room, they see the combined glow emitted by everyone there; this is where the sense of Fe being the "mood of the room" comes from.

Fe valuing types love being around people emitting 'blue' light. The colour of the laser beams is not seen as being as important as the colour of a person's Fe glow. Being connected by blue laser beams with people simply means that those people will be more likely to emit blue light when they're around, which is all Fe valuers are really after anyway. When red light appears, they feel the cause of it should be rooted out with Ti, and dealt with. Then the fun blue light can return.

Types weak in Fe have a harder time seeing and displaying this light. They can't always tell the difference between genuine light and fake light. Fe-PoLR types find strong Fe light unpleasant, and avoid it ("It burns us!"). They also mask any light they might have inside, closing it off from the world. This confuses Fe base types, who assume that they must simply be hiding a bunch of angry red light.

Fi valuers see the Fe glow simply as one way to determine the status of the laser beam between them: if one person consistantly reacts to another person with genuine blue light, then the laser beam between them must be blue, and vice versa. However, the Fe light is fickle and ever-changing, so they don't find it to be very reliable.

So that was my idea. What are everyone's thoughts on it, especially base Fe types?

---

So basically Fe-leading types have "emotional infrared". :P

---

Actually, yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brilliand

I think this is good, and an improvement on Expat's description. I've course, I'm one of those who can mistake yellow construction paper for the sun. :)

Let's see... extending this to :Te: and :Ti: a la Ti... :Ti: is boxes. The boxes contain stuff; they're organized and stacked on top of each other, and when enough stuff is put in boxes, empty spaces start to stand out where we don't have any boxes yet. :Ne: creatives will deal will pack the empty spaces with properly labeled empty boxes, in anticipation of finding the thing that goes there. Sometimes we'll talk as though we've already found it, because we know that it exists - the box is there, isn't it?

*Not talking about myself from here down, or anyone I've observed very closely - might be wrong*

:Se: creatives will look at the empty spaces and say "Those spaces are empty"; they'll mark the floor maybe, and certainly not put anything there that doesn't belong there, but they won't mark any boxes until they've found the thing to put in the box.

On the other hand, :Te: is a busy warehouse; things are constantly going in and out, and organization is based on how the things will be used. :Ti: is a warehouse for long-term storage and cataloging; space efficiency is important here. :Te: is a warehouse for constant use, with no dusty corners. Retrieval efficiency, not space efficiency, is the important thing.

---

IDK about your idea of Ne+Ti and Se+Ti, but I like the last paragraph. :thumbsup: And yes I realize this thread is ancient, but it still seems this forum haven't progressed much if at all since then.

If you like integral types, I think it's because we've basically passed into the :Ti: phase of refining the theory and connecting it up to other things (like labcoat's work). There's not really a lot of :Ne: or :Te: activity.

This is good. Though I must say, when Fe and Fi is defined in these abstract terms, I tend to relate to both of them.

The most relatable Fe descriptions tend to be when they are colored in terms of IEIs.

You already know all this but I'm in 'lecture mode' today, sorry, just tune it out. This is one of those days when I am writing too much and telling everyone things they already know.

Every ethical type is able to do both Fe and Fi. They're able to see it, understand it, and do it themselves, as necessary.

Same for all of them: N, S, F, and T. If you are strong in extraverted thinking, you're also strong in introverted thinking. If you're strong in extraverted feeling, you're strong in introverted feeling too. And same for sensing and intuition.

So yeah, you'll be able to relate to both Fe and Fi. That's why it is so difficult to type anyone. People can relate to, and recognize, and use, the things that are down at the bottom of Model A, in the 'id block,' the bottom row of squares. People are actually good at doing four functions, not just the top two functions in the ego block.

It would be easier to type people if they just absolutely couldn't use the opposite elements at all, like if somebody were really good at Fe but they absolutely couldn't use Fi at all.

And yeah, I'm thinking about this a lot because of actually trying to type people now. It is very hard to choose a type for someone because they're actually good at four different functions, not just two. So for instance I see someone seeming to use Ne at one moment, and seeming to use Ni at another moment, and I don't know which one they prefer most.

I wish that I could explain how I type people, but it really does seem to involve my Ti demonstrative function, because it's going on subconsciously and it's hard to verbalize. I know it but I don't put it into words. So everything in the id block at the bottom row will be like that - you know it internally but you don't put it into words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

Every ethical type is able to do both Fe and Fi. They're able to see it, understand it, and do it themselves, as necessary.

---

I don't. Fe tends to baffle the shit out of me and makes me generally uncomfortable when I'm expected to replicate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

Same for all of them: N, S, F, and T. If you are strong in extraverted thinking, you're also strong in introverted thinking. If you're strong in extraverted feeling, you're strong in introverted feeling too. And same for sensing and intuition.

---

I have yet to see myself or any other Ne ego I know be capable of reproducing Ni in any sort of accurate way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

So yeah, you'll be able to relate to both Fe and Fi. That's why it is so difficult to type anyone. People can relate to, and recognize, and use, the things that are down at the bottom of Model A, in the 'id block,' the bottom row of squares. People are actually good at doing four functions, not just the top two functions in the ego block.

---

It's not difficult if you know how Fe and Fi people actually work, and understand that the valuing of one excludes the natural understanding or reproductive capabilities of the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

It would be easier to type people if they just absolutely couldn't use the opposite elements at all, like if somebody were really good at Fe but they absolutely couldn't use Fi at all.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

And yeah, I'm thinking about this a lot because of actually trying to type people now. It is very hard to choose a type for someone because they're actually good at four different functions, not just two. So for instance I see someone seeming to use Ne at one moment, and seeming to use Ni at another moment, and I don't know which one they prefer most.

---

See above above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

I wish that I could explain how I type people, but it really does seem to involve my Ti demonstrative function, because it's going on subconsciously and it's hard to verbalize. I know it but I don't put it into words. So everything in the id block at the bottom row will be like that - you know it internally but you don't put it into words.

---

Then turn it into Te, that should be easy right?

Back on topic.

I'm still not a fan of describing F functions as "feelings," because whatever emotions may arise seem like secondary byproducts of the process underlying them. I talked about this a bit with my dad (without actually using the word Socionics or any sort of socionics terminology) and he made a point to substitute the word emotion with "experience," and given how F and S functions are involved (versus N and T being abstracted) this made a lot of sense to me.

Now I see both F functions are more means of experiential rationalization: the situation or object is understood by the individual in terms of how it is experienced. This would differ from S functions by means of the irrational -information input- versus rational -information synthesis- dichotomy. The reason why this may translate into the idea of emotions or feelings is since experience only happens on the individual level, it cannot be explained. From an experiential perspective, one cannot explain what the color red looks like; if you were to try to speak of "red" in terms of its scientific make-up, such as the wavelength of the light hitting your eyes, then you detach from the experience of the color itself. The same applies to the F functions: when one attempts to understand information on an experiential level, the result is something that loses its direct conveyability. I estimate that you could never properly convey something like a religious experience or sheer hatred to someone who's never experienced it before. If anything you could only explain such an understanding in terms of secondary qualifiers: the physical reactions you have, resulting courses of action, etc.

I may expand more on this later.

Two years later, I think the metaphors hold up.

Fe is Internal Dynamics of Objects, i.e., what's going on inside of things/people. The most common example of this is emotions or moods, one's changing emotional state. It's not strictly limited to emotions, though -- things like energy levels and feelings of physical pain or pleasure could also be considered Internal Dynamics of Objects (as opposed to Si which observes how such dynamics within objects are influenced by the physical interactions between objects).

Fi is Internal Statics of Fields, i.e., the internal attitude and orientation of objects toward one another. The most common example of this is sentiment and opinion, what people think and feel about other people, their relationships toward one another. I like Jane, I'm friends with Jim, Janice doesn't like me, and I'm enemies with Jack; that sort of thing. Like Fe, however, Fi isn't strictly limited to personal sentiments and opinions. Things like moral obligations and social status could also be considered Internal Statics of Fields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

Two years later, I think the metaphors hold up.

Fe is Internal Dynamics of Objects, i.e., what's going on inside of things/people. The most common example of this is emotions or moods, one's changing emotional state. It's not strictly limited to emotions, though -- things like energy levels and feelings of physical pain or pleasure could also be considered Internal Dynamics of Objects (as opposed to Si which observes how such dynamics within objects are influenced by the physical interactions between objects).

Fi is Internal Statics of Fields, i.e., the internal attitude and orientation of objects toward one another. The most common example of this is sentiment and opinion, what people think and feel about other people, their relationships toward one another. I like Jane, I'm friends with Jim, Janice doesn't like me, and I'm enemies with Jack; that sort of thing. Like Fe, however, Fi isn't strictly limited to personal sentiments and opinions. Things like moral obligations and social status could also be considered Internal Statics of Fields.

---

So basically every common conception about Fe and Fi put into two paragraphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

You already know all this but I'm in 'lecture mode' today, sorry, just tune it out. This is one of those days when I am writing too much and telling everyone things they already know.

Every ethical type is able to do both Fe and Fi. They're able to see it, understand it, and do it themselves, as necessary.

Same for all of them: N, S, F, and T. If you are strong in extraverted thinking, you're also strong in introverted thinking. If you're strong in extraverted feeling, you're strong in introverted feeling too. And same for sensing and intuition.

So yeah, you'll be able to relate to both Fe and Fi. That's why it is so difficult to type anyone. People can relate to, and recognize, and use, the things that are down at the bottom of Model A, in the 'id block,' the bottom row of squares. People are actually good at doing four functions, not just the top two functions in the ego block.

It would be easier to type people if they just absolutely couldn't use the opposite elements at all, like if somebody were really good at Fe but they absolutely couldn't use Fi at all.

And yeah, I'm thinking about this a lot because of actually trying to type people now. It is very hard to choose a type for someone because they're actually good at four different functions, not just two. So for instance I see someone seeming to use Ne at one moment, and seeming to use Ni at another moment, and I don't know which one they prefer most.

I wish that I could explain how I type people, but it really does seem to involve my Ti demonstrative function, because it's going on subconsciously and it's hard to verbalize. I know it but I don't put it into words. So everything in the id block at the bottom row will be like that - you know it internally but you don't put it into words.

---

The effect of Ti demonstrative is such that you don't try to force your knowledge onto others. But why? I think it also has something to do with avoiding conflict and "live and let live".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

So basically every common conception about Fe and Fi put into two paragraphs.

---

I was trying to logically describe how Internal Dynamics of Objects and Internal Statics of Fields manifest in real life. If what I described is commonly believed, it's because, in my opinion, it's an accurate description of the Information Elements in question.

This makes me feel like I'm a Fe-polr instead of Fi-polr

I liked this metaphor because it gives me a simple visual image that I can use in my mind. And it's true that Fe and Fi are probably more complicated than that, but I need an image that I can quickly see. I have to represent social interactions in my mind by using some kind of vague, symbolic imagery, because it's not easy for me to represent them in any kind of complex or detailed way. And I happened to stumble across this post while I was digging through some ancient historical threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

The effect of Ti demonstrative is such that you don't try to force your knowledge onto others. But why? I think it also has something to do with avoiding conflict and "live and let live".

---

Yes, that does describe how Ti demonstrative feels, to me. I *could* be extremely aggressive about using that type of logic, but it would be sort of painful or tiring, and I would also feel like I was getting into fights, so yeah, 'live and let live.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

So basically every common conception about Fe and Fi put into two paragraphs.

---

I was trying to logically describe how Internal Dynamics of Objects and Internal Statics of Fields manifest in real life.

---

Nanashi seems like a good example of an INTp who seems very aware of her moods and emotional self-expression, and Riddy is a good example of an ENTp who knows what people he likes and has very strong opinions about things. Likewise, I hardly care about things like social status. So, something's wrong here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

If what I described is commonly believed, it's because, in my opinion, it's an accurate description of the Information Elements in question.

---

Sound like an appeal to consensus to me.

and I'm a good example of a homie who ain't black. Home-slice, rep ra zent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Sound like an appeal to consensus to me.

---

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

If what I described is commonly believed, it's because, in my opinion, it's an accurate description of the Information Elements in question.

---

Sound like an appeal to consensus to me.

---

Though it doesn't affect the likelihood that accuracy is the reason why it's commonly believed. Do you expect more people to converge on accuracy or inaccuracy?

ESC, c'mon. Don't ask silly, bottomless questions.

actually its a valid point lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

I was trying to logically describe how Internal Dynamics of Objects and Internal Statics of Fields manifest in real life.

---

Nanashi seems like a good example of an INTp who seems very aware of her moods and emotional self-expression, and Riddy is a good example of an ENTp who knows what people he likes and has very strong opinions about things. Likewise, I hardly care about things like social status. So, something's wrong here.

---

I don't know anything about Nanashi or Riddy, so I can't confirm or dispute your assessment of them.

All types have access to all functions; an ILE's Vulnerable Fi doesn't mean he has no opinions or sentiments about anything, it just means he's not very good at dealing with such things. Function weakness doesn't mean it's absent in the personality, but that it lacks fine-tuned control and awareness. A person has to focus and concentrate harder to use their weaker functions, which is tiring and produces lower-quality results.

Moral obligation, especially in a general sense, is related to Fi+Ne, while social status is more of an Fi+Se matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

If what I described is commonly believed, it's because, in my opinion, it's an accurate description of the Information Elements in question.

---

Sound like an appeal to consensus to me.

---

If that's what it sounds like there's been a miscommunication. Logic and evidence are the only relevant factors when determining the truth of a matter; the opinion of others is irrelevant. I was merely pointing out that your implication (that ideas are incorrect because they are common) is not necessarily true. Popular opinion is irrelevant either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

I don't know anything about Nanashi or Riddy, so I can't confirm or dispute your assessment of them.

All types have access to all functions; an ILE's Vulnerable Fi doesn't mean he has no opinions or sentiments about anything, it just means he's not very good at dealing with such things. Function weakness doesn't mean it's absent in the personality, but that it lacks fine-tuned control and awareness. A person has to focus and concentrate harder to use their weaker functions, which is tiring and produces lower-quality results.

---

Then it appears that we have different conceptions about the nature of IEs, if this isn't painfully obvious to you too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

If that's what it sounds like there's been a miscommunication. Logic and evidence are the only relevant factors when determining the truth of a matter; the opinion of others is irrelevant. I was merely pointing out that your implication (that ideas are incorrect because they are common) is not necessarily true. Popular opinion is irrelevant either way.

---

Well to be fair I wasn't trying to say common ideas are incorrect. I'm more trying to say that using the notion that an idea is popular neither confirms or denies the idea's veracity. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I felt that it had to be said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

I don't know anything about Nanashi or Riddy, so I can't confirm or dispute your assessment of them.

All types have access to all functions; an ILE's Vulnerable Fi doesn't mean he has no opinions or sentiments about anything, it just means he's not very good at dealing with such things. Function weakness doesn't mean it's absent in the personality, but that it lacks fine-tuned control and awareness. A person has to focus and concentrate harder to use their weaker functions, which is tiring and produces lower-quality results.

---

Then it appears that we have different conceptions about the nature of IEs, if this isn't painfully obvious to you too.

---

Honestly, I think we need to find a way to clearly distinguish between these two versions of socionics. Currently, we're confusing the newbies and others by presenting them with two completely contradictory sets of descriptions and typings, and acting like they derive from the same theory. But these are two distinct, internally coherent theories. Surely there are some kind of names we can come up with to distinguish your and Ashton's views on socionics from the views of those who agree with me.

If I understand correctly, your theory posits that unvalued functions don't manifest in behaviour, is that correct? Or is that the old version of the theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

If that's what it sounds like there's been a miscommunication. Logic and evidence are the only relevant factors when determining the truth of a matter; the opinion of others is irrelevant. I was merely pointing out that your implication (that ideas are incorrect because they are common) is not necessarily true. Popular opinion is irrelevant either way.

---

Well to be fair I wasn't trying to say common ideas are incorrect. I'm more trying to say that using the notion that an idea is popular neither confirms or denies the idea's veracity. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I felt that it had to be said.

---

Okay, I'm glad we agree, then. :content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Back on topic.

I'm still not a fan of describing F functions as "feelings," because whatever emotions may arise seem like secondary byproducts of the process underlying them. I talked about this a bit with my dad (without actually using the word Socionics or any sort of socionics terminology) and he made a point to substitute the word emotion with "experience," and given how F and S functions are involved (versus N and T being abstracted) this made a lot of sense to me.

Now I see both F functions are more means of experiential rationalization: the situation or object is understood by the individual in terms of how it is experienced. This would differ from S functions by means of the irrational -information input- versus rational -information synthesis- dichotomy. The reason why this may translate into the idea of emotions or feelings is since experience only happens on the individual level, it cannot be explained. From an experiential perspective, one cannot explain what the color red looks like; if you were to try to speak of "red" in terms of its scientific make-up, such as the wavelength of the light hitting your eyes, then you detach from the experience of the color itself. The same applies to the F functions: when one attempts to understand information on an experiential level, the result is something that loses its direct conveyability. I estimate that you could never properly convey something like a religious experience or sheer hatred to someone who's never experienced it before. If anything you could only explain such an understanding in terms of secondary qualifiers: the physical reactions you have, resulting courses of action, etc.

I may expand more on this later.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Are you saying all 'F' functions are qualia, that all qualia are examples of 'F' functions, or some other less stringent claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Then it appears that we have different conceptions about the nature of IEs, if this isn't painfully obvious to you too.

---

Honestly, I think we need to find a way to clearly distinguish between these two versions of socionics. Currently, we're confusing the newbies and others by presenting them with two completely contradictory sets of descriptions and typings, and acting like they derive from the same theory. But these are two distinct, internally coherent theories. Surely there are some kind of names we can come up with to distinguish your and Ashton's views on socionics from the views of those who agree with me.

If I understand correctly, your theory posits that unvalued functions don't manifest in behaviour, is that correct? Or is that the old version of the theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Well to be fair I wasn't trying to say common ideas are incorrect. I'm more trying to say that using the notion that an idea is popular neither confirms or denies the idea's veracity. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I felt that it had to be said.

---

Okay, I'm glad we agree, then. :content:

---

Galen is either extremely ignorant, or operating under a series of false assumptions to be able to say some of the things he said if he is indeed attempting to link his observations with 'Model A'- although, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that whatever he is talking about, preaching, studying, etc, is not "socionics", fundamentally different, and has very little correlative validity. This is the only way to make what he has said here, and in certain other places make sense. If this isn't the case, I would ask for an explanation and evidence as to how you (Galen) arrived at such conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

If I understand correctly, your theory posits that unvalued functions don't manifest in behaviour, is that correct? Or is that the old version of the theory?

---

Given my understandings of the how IEs work + observations of myself and others, I would say with some vein of confidence that unvalued IEs do not make major/direct manifest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by munenori2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Are you saying all 'F' functions are qualia, that all qualia are examples of 'F' functions, or some other less stringent claim?

---

I really don't know the term too well, so I can't say for sure. But from what I'm reading there are some definite comparisons to be drawn between involved IEs and the nature of qualia. Interesting connection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thePirate

Galen is either extremely ignorant, or operating under a series of false assumptions to be able to say some of the things he said if he is indeed attempting to link his observations with 'Model A'- although, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that whatever he is talking about, preaching, studying, etc, is not "socionics", fundamentally different, and has very little correlative validity. This is the only way to make what he has said here, and in certain other places make sense. If this isn't the case, I would ask for an explanation and evidence as to how you (Galen) arrived at such conclusions.

---

I'm not trying to make connections to any model. I'm just describing my own musings/connections/observations about the IEs as discrete patterns of cognition and understanding. Not sure where you got any depictions of Model A out of what I wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

Honestly, I think we need to find a way to clearly distinguish between these two versions of socionics. Currently, we're confusing the newbies and others by presenting them with two completely contradictory sets of descriptions and typings, and acting like they derive from the same theory. But these are two distinct, internally coherent theories. Surely there are some kind of names we can come up with to distinguish your and Ashton's views on socionics from the views of those who agree with me.

---

Kindly state the "version" you're adhering to and describe, as a percentage, the degree to which you've perfected its apprehension and application.

Secondly, be advised that by refusing to answer the substance of Galen's post and insinuating heresy you stoop to the fallacious trick of poisoning the well*.

Quote:

---

If I understand correctly, your theory posits that unvalued functions don't manifest in behaviour, is that correct? Or is that the old version of the theory?

---

This passive-aggressive red herring is a continuation of the previous ad hom and its only purpose is to sway the ignorant.

What's refreshing about Galen's post goes well beyond its thoughtfulness, nuance, and subtlety. That is, it's an entirely cognitivist take on IEs, the very atoms of socionics. That places it in strong contrast to the dozens of facile behaviorist arguments thrown around about information metabolism on this forum daily. What makes the latter practice even more absurd is that behaviorism is the very reason that 16chan members disdain MBTI or enneagram enthusiasts.

Quote:

---

* Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem.

A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false, relevant or irrelevant) about person A (the target) is presented by another. (e.g., "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.")
2. Implicit conclusion: "Therefore, any claims made by person A cannot be relied upon".

A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. (For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.") Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process. In other words, "Everything I say is correct, no matter what you say."

A poisoned-well "argument" can also be in this form:

1. Unfavorable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position)
2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

If I understand correctly, your theory posits that unvalued functions don't manifest in behaviour, is that correct? Or is that the old version of the theory?

---

Given my understandings of the how IEs work + observations of myself and others, I would say with some vein of confidence that unvalued IEs do not make major/direct manifest.

---

Didn't this used to be called "Model X"? Are you guys still using that term, or has it fallen out of favour now?

Edit: Does your theory accept the "aspects" of the I.E.s (i.e., Internal Dynamics of Objects, External Statics of Fields, etc.)? If it doesn't, that might be the easiest way to distinguish between the two theories. Otherwise, we'll have to find some other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

Didn't this used to be called "Model X"? Are you guys still using that term, or has it fallen out of favour now?

---

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Given my understandings of the how IEs work + observations of myself and others, I would say with some vein of confidence that unvalued IEs do not make major/direct manifest.

---

Didn't this used to be called "Model X"? Are you guys still using that term, or has it fallen out of favour now?

Edit: Does your theory accept the "aspects" of the I.E.s (i.e., Internal Dynamics of Objects, External Statics of Fields, etc.)? If it doesn't, that might be the easiest way to distinguish between the two theories. Otherwise, we'll have to find some other way.

---

FFS, Krig, are you ignorant or doing it on purpose? I wasn't around for model X but it has been explained a thousand times since Ashton, ann and some others came back that 1) model X is history (I don't know of anyone using it), 2) "aspectonics, stupid!". In fact discussion about the latter was revitalized about that time, the issue having been largely ignored by t16t community earlier, if I recall correctly.

AFAIK the biggest difference between Ashton's - I refuse to refer to a non-existing group you term as "ashtonians" as single-minded entity - socionics methodology and what's generally accepted by you, Marie and many others here is 1) more extensive use of VI, 2) preference for Jungian approach to functions over common behavioral correlation. You can call VI guessing or call behavioralism stereotyping - I happen to do both - but don't try to make up stuff to demonize it.


IOW, what k0rp said. :thumbsup:

i wish people used stereotypes more often around here. it would be an improvement over outright incoherence.

the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Just for the record, the first user that made extensive use of "involved" and "abstracted" along with "internal" and "external" and "well-defined" and "not-well-defined" was Smilingeyes. I don't think it has anything to do with "Ashtonian" socionics.

they're just names, all of which flawed and none of which saying much of anything. they're serve mostly as placeholder markers in most peoples' minds, though i'm sure they'll tell you differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labocat

they're just names, all of which flawed and none of which saying much of anything.

---

I'm not that sure. The involved / abstracted dichotomy seems to have a direct connection with how a person easily reacts or detaches from the environment, for example.

i prefer NTSF dichotomies and clubs over those. they have more substance to them. better not to take abstraction to the point of overkill.

btw, those dichotomies and clubs are directly correlated:
involved: SF
abstract: NT
external: ST
internal: NF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Just for the record, the first user that made extensive use of "involved" and "abstracted" along with "internal" and "external" and "well-defined" and "not-well-defined" was Smilingeyes. I don't think it has anything to do with "Ashtonian" socionics.

---

I said "revitalized" because it was practically non-existent at the time I came here, although obviously there were many old threads about it. In fact it might have been renewed discussion of aspectonics that brought ann back, I don't recall. Either way, implying there's some "socionics" version that people who talk to Ashton are using and which rejects aspectonics and such is a sort of "jews poison wells and kill babies" propaganda (those claims were actually made in middle ages, btw). Whether it stems from ignorance, or desire to discredit people who disagree by all means in order to forward one's own approach to the theory, is another matter entirely.

I am only posting because my name was brought up.

When I first bumped into the aspects, it was largely dismissed by 16T. While I was trying to understand what the aspects were referring to, smilingeyes was willing to brainstorm with me and that's how the well-defined, not well-defined meaning for internal/external came into play.

Ashton, Sara, and FDG, and a couple of other people were also willing to help me try to figure them out. It was "a new thing" being considered. Even Rick, at the time, said he regretted having put them onto that page on his site, as he felt they were worthless.

I had found the involved/abstract dichotomy, and the continuous/discrete dichtomy on a Russian site, not Rick's.

After coming back from an extended leave, people like Joy, Gilly, and one other person were just starting to explore and make sense of the aspects, much like I'd been put down for doing.

After another extended absence, more people were hesitantly using the aspects, but most dismissed the involved/abstract as meaningless, and noone even seemed to remember the continuous/discrete.

And the last time I came back, and this time, the involved/abstract set is much better accepted and used.

Memes take a while to spread, and people learn new memes, try to understand them, and may even eventually dismiss those memes for other memes. It's not quite fair, imo, to expect others to know when you've changed memes, nor immediately know which memes you are using. That's part of why we communicate...to share and learn the memes of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

Given my understandings of the how IEs work + observations of myself and others, I would say with some vein of confidence that unvalued IEs do not make major/direct manifest.

---

Didn't this used to be called "Model X"? Are you guys still using that term, or has it fallen out of favour now?

Edit: Does your theory accept the "aspects" of the I.E.s (i.e., Internal Dynamics of Objects, External Statics of Fields, etc.)? If it doesn't, that might be the easiest way to distinguish between the two theories. Otherwise, we'll have to find some other way.

---

This, to me, shows that Krig recognizes a difference, and would like to clarify what the difference is.

I never quite grasped Model X, myself, so I may be wrong, but wasn't part of Model X about the non-ego or non-quadra IE not being part of a person's psyche? I don't know if this was a part of Model X, I do remember that this was a difference between my views and Ashton's. Out of respect, we rarely talked about it with each other.

The second part of Krig's post is a clear sign to me that he's trying to open dialog between he and Galen as to what each consider part of defining IEs. Notice he's talking about trying to distinguish the two theories, and if the aspects aren't the difference, then maybe they could work together to figure out what is the difference.

^ yeah maybe I overreacted but FTR it takes all of my goodwill to even consider the possibility that someone so active here, and seemingly intelligent, could have possibly missed all of what have been posted and discussed in the last year or so re: aspectonics and model X.

model X is something really basic and hardly even worth giving a name. it just points to the truism that "Creative Ne" and "PoLR Se" are the same thing except in terms of emphasis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

^ yeah maybe I overreacted but FTR it takes all of my goodwill to even consider the possibility that someone so active here, and seemingly intelligent, could have possibly missed all of what have been posted and discussed in the last year or so re: aspectonics and model X.

---

:oops:
Well, for my case....i'd have probably avoided most threads and posts that went into stuff like that...except for reading out of curiosity about how people are using the aspects. But then, I'm not that great at understanding even half the stuff that gets talked about regarding various models. :shuffles away:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

^ yeah maybe I overreacted but FTR it takes all of my goodwill to even consider the possibility that someone so active here, and seemingly intelligent, could have possibly missed all of what have been posted and discussed in the last year or so re: aspectonics and model X.

---

:oops:
Well, for my case....i'd have probably avoided most threads and posts that went into stuff like that...except for reading out of curiosity about how people are using the aspects. But then, I'm not that great at understanding even half the stuff that gets talked about regarding various models. :shuffles away:

---

I was talking about Krig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thePirate

Galen is either extremely ignorant, or operating under a series of false assumptions to be able to say some of the things he said if he is indeed attempting to link his observations with 'Model A'- although, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that whatever he is talking about, preaching, studying, etc, is not "socionics", fundamentally different, and has very little correlative validity. This is the only way to make what he has said here, and in certain other places make sense. If this isn't the case, I would ask for an explanation and evidence as to how you (Galen) arrived at such conclusions.

---

So, you're fine with calling someone ignorant and condemning what they're saying, though you admit you don't even understand it.

Very nice.

---

I love how when anyone does this to you, you say "blah blah blah semantics blah blah blah" and yet when you do it you sound as full of shit and self-inflated as ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labocat

model X is something really basic and hardly even worth giving a name. it just points to the truism that "Creative Ne" and "PoLR Se" are the same thing except in terms of emphasis.

---

I thought it also didn't include id functions or the role.

Model X also distinguishes between temperament and the leading function (~= mode function [I presume]), since the only thing preventing a Ti-ENTp from being a Ti-INTj is the EP temperament. In Model A temperament is directly correlated to leading function.

At least afacit. I haven't really looked into it much, so I'd appreciate any correction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k0rpsey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krig the Viking

Didn't this used to be called "Model X"? Are you guys still using that term, or has it fallen out of favour now?

---

 

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

---

i dont know a good reason for this to be spoilered. i think this is out of hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

AFAIK the biggest difference between Ashton's - I refuse to refer to a non-existing group you term as "ashtonians" as single-minded entity - socionics methodology and what's generally accepted by you, Marie and many others here is 1) more extensive use of VI, 2) preference for Jungian approach to functions over common behavioral correlation. You can call VI guessing or call behavioralism stereotyping - I happen to do both - but don't try to make up stuff to demonize it.

---

I don't think there is a ashtonian "group" and "members" in the same sense that we have say, a administration staff and moderators here.

However there is a significant amount of conversation that occurs outside of this forum in IRC and other venues that result in information being presented in a certain way which is novel to many users here. Say I put a parakeet and had it listen to a bunch of conversations, it's probably going to mimic quite a few of those words and regurgitate them in the way that parakeets do.

People have even more comprehensive mimicry capabilities when they engage in social interaction and these can happen automatically rather then consciously, it's no surprise that friends that are very close and partners that become close and seem very similar and share their own personal language. Neither is it surprising that identical twins often have a very unique language that is their own.

By these sort of natural and intrinsic behaviors that humans engage in, social groups form, collapse and evolve automatically without require any conscious decisions on the part of the interlocutors.

Take a look at this concert video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAtUgPQ4dh4

Over a quarter of a million people are engage in group behavior but that doesn't mean they have a significant intellectual relationship beyond their common interests in prodigy and the environment they are in. However it promotes a level of behavioral synchronicity.

Nevertheless, there are going to be distinct differences in how others will view the people on stage vs the people in the crowd, regardless of what the individuals in the crowd do in other environments.

Coincidentally, ethical functions and the biological and physical process by which this processing occurs is significant in group behavior, community building and other forms of social interactions.

Oh yea.... one more thing.

That video... Fe..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kassie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k0rpsey

 

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

---

i dont know a good reason for this to be spoilered. i think this is out of hand.

---

I sincerely ask you to strive to understand why that comment is both a personal attack and against the forum rules.

This will continue to occur in a very prompt fashion when it is noticed, and Korpsey will be facing stiffer administrative punishment should he continue to troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Uh. That was not at all a personal attack; it was a common example of a loaded question.

---

Should have used a different one. Users are not prohibited from altering or changing their posts after moderation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Should have used a different one.

---

Meanwhile a mere few posts up in this same thread, Gilly is openly cursing at and denouncing people as usual lol.

Hypocrisy much?

---

Do you want me to moderate it? I'm here to serve? Should I moderate Aiss too, or thePirate?

Click this here below you avatar.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ons/report.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

(lots of stuff on behaviour of crowds)

---

The point isn't that there's a group of people who enjoy talking in irc and maybe even have an inside joke or two, or discuss ideas which are not as popular on the forum.

The point is that those people do not, and never did, as far back as I recall, have anything like a single mind when it comes to socionics, nor even reach consensus this more often than the rest of the community, which is reflected in their typings. And yet that's exactly what is being insinuated, over and over, serving as a convenient excuse not to take anyone seriously if they dare to actually *gasp* talk to someone like Ashton.

I don't care if you don't care what a particular person's opinion is. I care that people are found to be guilty by association. I care that people are hesitant to speak up because they know they'll be treated this way if they're thought to be connected to That Group. I care that in the end, it's not about any real phenomenon like your group behaviour remarks, but just a tool to dismiss others' ideas without taking the trouble of considering them first. It might be convenient, but it's only effect is reinforcing one's own ideas by the means of effectively ending free discussion.

http://www.img2.desicolours.net/2009...r_funny_05.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Uh. That was not at all a personal attack; it was a common example of a loaded question.

---

Should have used a different one. Users are not prohibited from altering or changing their posts after moderation.

---

lol, i dont know if you're even trying to hide your little personal grudge or not, but if you are you're doing a really crappy job of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

(lots of stuff on behaviour of crowds)

---

The point isn't that there's a group of people who enjoy talking in irc and maybe even have an inside joke or two, or discuss ideas which are not as popular on the forum.

The point is that those people do not, and never did, as far back as I recall, have anything like a single mind when it comes to socionics, nor even reach consensus this more often than the rest of the community, which is reflected in their typings. And yet that's exactly what is being insinuated, over and over, serving as a convenient excuse not to take anyone seriously if they dare to actually *gasp* talk to someone like Ashton.

I don't care if you don't care what a particular person's opinion is. I care that people are found to be guilty by association. I care that people are hesitant to speak up because they know they'll be treated this way if they're thought to be connected to That Group. I care that in the end, it's not about any real phenomenon like your group behaviour remarks, but just a tool to dismiss others' ideas without taking the trouble of considering them first. It might be convenient, but it's only effect is reinforcing one's own ideas by the means of effectively ending free discussion.

---

(not necessarily a direct response to the above poster)

As far as groupthink goes, how many people are actually purported to associate with Ashton as part of a clique and have had their opinions dismissed?

Who are the people that are hesitant to speak up?

aiss! :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

The point isn't that there's a group of people who enjoy talking in irc and maybe even have an inside joke or two, or discuss ideas which are not as popular on the forum.

The point is that those people do not, and never did, as far back as I recall, have anything like a single mind when it comes to socionics, nor even reach consensus this more often than the rest of the community, which is reflected in their typings. And yet that's exactly what is being insinuated, over and over, serving as a convenient excuse not to take anyone seriously if they dare to actually *gasp* talk to someone like Ashton.

I don't care if you don't care what a particular person's opinion is. I care that people are found to be guilty by association. I care that people are hesitant to speak up because they know they'll be treated this way if they're thought to be connected to That Group. I care that in the end, it's not about any real phenomenon like your group behaviour remarks, but just a tool to dismiss others' ideas without taking the trouble of considering them first. It might be convenient, but it's only effect is reinforcing one's own ideas by the means of effectively ending free discussion.

---

I've talked on IRC quite a bit as well as on cam, but I'm not associated with "That Group".
I might be associated with Krae whom I had many wonderful conversations with and have no problem with that association, despite his animosity with Turks whom I quite like, esp the food.

Perception is a bitch, unfortunately, there are reasons why perceptions persist regardless of their validity. As I mentioned, mimicry, common language characteristic, these can be noticed by others and lead them to their perceptions, right or wrong. Those that are able to seperate themselves with distinguishing characteristics and novel behavior can naturally separate themselves from association.

There have been many people who've shuffled thru the various IRC channels and stickam and tinychat that have at various points been associated and disassociated themselves from these perceptions.

Take someone like hitta, who has been a constant in the many venues of interaction outside of this forum, he has always maintained a independence and lack of association with any sort of group.

He is even sort of a mascot for this forum, despite the fact that he rarely posts and often has posted against this forum in the past. This is because he has distinguished himself from the crowd and has attained a stage so to speak.

Thanks but I kinda don't feel like becoming another hitta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kassie

lol, i dont know if you're even trying to hide your little personal grudge or not, but if you are you're doing a really crappy job of it.

---

Why would I hide my personal problems with Korpsey? I think he's a troll and abuses others.

However, he is allowed here due to my tolerance for people I don't like and that they can often offer valuable insight and information which he does occasionally.

As long as he does not troll and abuse others, there will be no reason for to moderate him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

Thanks but I kinda don't feel like becoming another hitta.

---

You seem a very capable and independent person all on your own, why would you want to be hitta....

Why would anyone want to be hitta... :love: hitta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I sincerely ask you to strive to understand why that comment is both a personal attack and against the forum rules.

---

And I ask you to explain it without engaging in more hand waving, projection, or deceit.

There is nothing personal but self defense in answering repeated calumnies with truth. Spreading innuendo soils the slanderer even more than its target. As someone who is tasked with upholding propriety and decorum and has proclaimed a personal investment in these values Krig should be above such scurrilous tactics.

Quote:

---

This will continue to occur in a very prompt fashion when it is noticed, and Korpsey will be facing stiffer administrative punishment should he continue to troll.

---

And you, having a very personal axe to grind, as well as a tendency toward idée fixe and confirmation bias, will continue falling haplessly into the snares of your illusions. Your comedic performance on stickam last night revealed much about your rational failings, and the argumentum ad baculum you've issued now has no moral power since it's being wielded to protect a lie. That this deception by and against the ignorant is being perpetrated on a forum that purports to investigate the truth of human perception is beyond contemptible. It's quite telling that you'd rather rid yourself of the man who mocks your folly than to divest yourself of hubris itself. For shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

As long as he does not troll and abuse others, there will be no reason for to moderate him.

---

pointing out fallacies is not trolling. you're trying to hide the fact that you're not impartial by pretending his comments are "abusive."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

As far as groupthink goes, how many people are actually purported to associate with Ashton as part of a clique and have had their opinions dismissed?

Who are the people that are hesitant to speak up?

---

Do a search for "ashtonite" or something. :8*

Since they don't want to be notice, I'd have to be an absolute idiot to name them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kassie

aiss! :love:

---

<3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kassie

pointing out fallacies is not trolling. you're trying to hide the fact that you're not impartial by pretending his comments are "abusive."

---

I'm not impartial, I'm not sure if anyone can possibly ever be.

Obviously, I don't welcome korpsey here, doesn't mean he is not allowed to be here.

We differ on what we view trolling as, that's fine.

If you have any post you think is trolling or against the forum rules, it is your right to report it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

However there is a significant amount of conversation that occurs outside of this forum in IRC and other venues that result in information being presented in a certain way which is novel to many users here. Say I put a parakeet and had it listen to a bunch of conversations, it's probably going to mimic quite a few of those words and regurgitate them in the way that parakeets do.

People have even more comprehensive mimicry capabilities when they engage in social interaction and these can happen automatically rather then consciously, it's no surprise that friends that are very close and partners that become close and seem very similar and share their own personal language. Neither is it surprising that identical twins often have a very unique language that is their own.

By these sort of natural and intrinsic behaviors that humans engage in, social groups form, collapse and evolve automatically without require any conscious decisions on the part of the interlocutors.

---

Wouldn't a similar mimicry be occuring each time someone references the supposed Ashton's groups or Ashton's followers? or what model x was, or what this supposed group believes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Perception is a bitch, unfortunately, there are reasons why perceptions persist regardless of their validity.

---

The reason in this case is largely the repetitions of vague falsehoods that exploit the dark irrationality inherent to all human minds, a coercive instrument that has been used to stir entire nations against the world or even against themselves.

Quote:

---

As I mentioned, mimicry, common language characteristic, these can be noticed by others and lead them to their perceptions, right or wrong.

---

Likewise the growing and paranoid cult of those who assert the sinister influence of a certain group without producing actual evidence. From my vantage they're merely attempting to protect the sanctity of an orthodox catechism from intrusions by challenges from the real world.

Quote:

---

Those that are able to seperate themselves with distinguishing characteristics and novel behavior can naturally separate themselves from association.

---

The only real unifying thread I've noticed is an emphasis on cognitivism over behaviorism and a greater application of Jungian functions to socionics models, primarily the vaunted Model A. In most other regards you're simply seeing what you prejudicially prefer to see.

Lastly, my rough play and leg pulling often has an instructional purpose, and if I target some people more than others it's because they are simply so often wrong. That this should occur so frequently among the more intelligent members of this community (and I include myself among the errant as well) is a neverending source of amusement to me. The whiners among you should be flattered that I regard you as worthwhile sparring material and seek to help you bring yourselves to reason.

Quote:

---

From my vantage they're merely attempting to protect the sanctity of an orthodox catechism from intrusions by challenges from the real world.

---

You're not allowed to do that. You're just insecure so you try to poke other people. As long as you post here with us, you're just as much of a person removed from the 'real world' as the rest of us. What do you mean from your vantage? You post at different altitudes then the rest of us??? lmao. You are so insecure.

Heh.

I can't wait till this theory gets more popular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Wouldn't a similar mimicry be occuring each time someone references the supposed Ashton's groups or Ashton's followers? or what model x was, or what this supposed group believes?

---

I think the key is the interaction of observers, because mimicry requires an interaction.

Since this is a forum and many of the users have interaction, it can be very possible that a mimicry is occurring, and that it is just a stubbornly persistent perception.

However, it is also possible that it is not a stubbornly persistent perception but a convergence of independent minds forming the same analysis.

It can also be a bit of both, where a few members are independent and form this analysis, and others are merely following the originators analysis.

Followers happen...

Ann, if you want to start a new thread on Group behavior in other areas of knowledge. I'm always very interested in this sort of stuff too.

What wrong with saying that someone is influenced by Ashton, or Yermak, or Expat, or labocat, or DarkAngelFireWolf69, or Ephemeros, or Smilex? And why do people jump to the conclusion that that person is being demonized by association? Let's forget the bad blood from five years ago and just agree that people have different interpretations of socionics (not necessarily a bad thing for a theory with questionable scientific credentials). But classification on its own ain't evil - it's just a tool to put things (particularly typing impasses) into perspective.

hey so what's the deal with abstracted IEs amirite xDDDDD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

So long as it isn't used as a rhetorical device to discredit others, "oh, don't listen them, they're influenced by the Expatian-Rickionics cabal, therefore their opinion is obviously dubious." Which is effectively what happens every time this issue arises.

---

:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

As far as groupthink goes, how many people are actually purported to associate with Ashton as part of a clique and have had their opinions dismissed?

Who are the people that are hesitant to speak up?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Because in many instances it isn't clear there was influence.

---

That's not as important as looking for actual similarities. For example, Marie and Krig (last I checked) obviously arrived at many of the same socionics conclusions without directly influencing each other.

Quote:

---

While self-disclosure of bias is good—i.e., the person stating what their assumptions are, the sources they've learned from, etc.—it isn't appropriate for others to come in and make those allegations for them (see Poisoning the well).

---

Only if the person making the allegation is overzealous or doesn't fully understand the material he's reading. And "poisoning the well" only applies if the intention is to ridicule, which isn't necessarily the case.

one thorough look at this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...SenhseXc#gid=0 makes it clear that Marie84, Krig the Viking, thehotelambush, Subterranean and Aestrivex are pretty much brothers in typings while not being brothers and sisters with other typers who participated, for example. let's stop this charade and split the socionics schools once and for all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

The same could likewise be occurring in other instances where an ostensible convergence of opinion is observed. People independently arriving at similar conclusions, without directly influencing one another.

Alleging that one has been 'influenced' by another (when this cannot be ascertained as true), would be a form of discrediting and ridicule.

---

"Influence" maybe a poor choice of words, and I apologize for using it. I frankly couldn't care less where someone draws his spark from. All I care about is understanding the types of assumptions that people make about socionics, in part to help me question my own assumptions about the theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

If this is going to be done, then I think each 'school' ought to be loosely formalized. i.e, it should be explained (by persons of the 'school') what the core typological/philosophical assumptions of that school are. Each should address fundamental questions such as 'what are IEs?', 'what is a sociotype?', and so forth.

---

it is my impression that, at this point in time, the Marie84ians are the most capable of doing that...asldjasdljdka

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I think the names of each 'school' ought to be depersonalized as well. No 'Expatian', 'Niffweedian', 'Trevorian', or anything like that.

.

---

No anndelisionics?
:(

Let's take it to another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

The second part of Krig's post is a clear sign to me that he's trying to open dialog between he and Galen as to what each consider part of defining IEs. Notice he's talking about trying to distinguish the two theories, and if the aspects aren't the difference, then maybe they could work together to figure out what is the difference.

---

Exactly, thank you. It's nice to be understood occasionally! :content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

[the history of the aspects]

---

Neat, I wasn't aware of the history there. I always wondered where "aspectonics" came from; it has been extremely helpful in clearing up my understanding of the I.E.s and how they work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

FFS, Krig, are you ignorant or doing it on purpose? I wasn't around for model X but it has been explained a thousand times since Ashton, ann and some others came back that 1) model X is history (I don't know of anyone using it), 2) "aspectonics, stupid!". In fact discussion about the latter was revitalized about that time, the issue having been largely ignored by t16t community earlier, if I recall correctly.

---

I looked at Ashton's typings and theories a few years ago, found that they did not correlate with my own observations on how socionics works, and have had little interest in keeping up with developments since. I heard somewhere a while ago that Ashton and others weren't calling it "Model X" anymore, but I didn't know if there had been changes to the theory itself, or whether the name had perhaps come back into favour, etc. I'm honestly trying to learn more about this school of thought to better understand the differences between it and the school of thought to which I adhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Analyst Trevor

let's stop this charade and split the socionics schools once and for all

---

If this is going to be done, then I think each 'school' ought to be loosely formalized. That is, it should be explained (by persons of that 'school') what their core typological/philosophical assumptions are—addressing fundamental questions such as "What are IEs?", "What is a sociotype?", and so forth.

I think it'd be an interesting exercise and clarify a great deal for all persons involved here.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I think the names of each 'school' ought to be depersonalized as well. No 'Expatian', 'Niffweedian', 'Trevorian', or anything like that.

---

My thoughts exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Let's take it to another thread.

---

Sounds good. For anyone else reading this, the "another thread" is here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=37228