Alpha/Gamma Questions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinocchio

Yeah.

Alphas: treat each person as a soul (Extroverted+Internal - Ne, Fe) but treat humanity as meat (Introverted+External - Si, Ti).
Gammas: treat humanity as souls (Introverted+Internal - Ni, Fi) but treat each person as meat (Extroverted+External - De, Te).

How can they agree?

---

Therefore, betas treat each person as meat with a soul (Se+Fe) and humanity as a meaty soul (Ni+Ti).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

What do you propose then, is the spot of conflict between gamma NTs and alpha SFs. Truthfully, I haven't had a lot of experience with many alpha SFs.

---

I think it has to do with the different approach to abstractions. The way an Alpha SF understands a theory is to extrapolate it into the environment to see if it works, you know, like matching things up. Does it match with reality? I think that's how Alpha NTs are their duals, cause they will come up with a pattern of thought that will compliment that, or underlying rules for processes. I liked what you said once about Si seemingly coming out of nowhere for you. I think it's because, at least in my experience, it takes a long time for me to synthesize a concept into something solid. And with someone with an Si polr, who didn't observe the process as it evolved, or see the data the Si person collected about their environment, it seems really out of nowhere. But for a person like you, you're synthesizing things in a more internal way, the expression of it depends on certain external boundaries or principles or sense observations holding it in place, that's kind of how I view Ni working with Se. The thing is, we aren't so great at the ego functions of our duals. An information loop makes for a more complete understanding of a concept. A Gamma NT cannot always successfully qualify their internal subjective insights enough that they are observationally in tune with the environment, a Alpha SF cannot always successfully qualify their external subjective insights enough that they make sense according to internal coherency. And then you have the temperaments coming into conflict which would intensify the disparity of the rhythm of such things. And in this way they conflict. Does that make sense?

Quote:

---

I know I responded to this already, but after reading it again I understand it better. I'm not sure if it's socionics related or what, but I have a hard time understanding your writing.

---

lol I'm sorry.

Quote:

---

Si is external so it is quantifiable and measurable. It is introverted meaning it deals with the subjective interpretation.

---

Ok awesome. Because I've been wondering for a while how Si had been described in the past with people as this incredibly personal subjective inner journey, and then they're like blah blah it's so external, and I was getting the dichotomies mixed up lol.

Quote:

---

Again, this is what will be observed, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. I'm saying that NTs will likely see SFs as airheads, but that doesn't mean that SFs are actually airheads.

---

I know they're not actually airheads, but I still tend to think their intellectual bent will often overshadow or even eliminate the airhead perception.

Quote:

---

I meant that it was the wrong term for what was trying to be said. I never said anything about it being right or wrong. I was saying that they aren't here so people try to represent them regardless of whether or not that is right.

---

I know :) I'm speaking I suppose of change that is not yet here, and idk if it ever will. I just believe that to make change we have to act according to the principles it's based upon, even if the outcome isn't tangible yet.

Quote:

---

Many character judgments are decided by socionics, but it is true that character judgments are also decided by other factors. For that reason, it is true that this is not a proper way of evaluating relations, but I wasn't trying to say that it was. I meant that you will probably like your dual.

---

Honestly I often don't like my duals and/or we don't seem to recognize each other at first. It's very messy as opposed to starting with a clean slate. But maybe that's cause I'm unhealthy perhaps.

Quote:

---

This is false. Priorities is exactly what socionics touches on. Priorities of mental focus. The mental focus then becoming a priority of your life.

---

Ok then we'll have to disagree here. I think those are covered more accurately by stuff like enneagram and instincts. I tend to think Socionics is more structure of mentalities than content.

Quote:

---

It is generally accepted that S and F give social advantages over N and T. S focusing on immediate situations and F focusing on things most readily provided by people. People can adapt, but their ability to adapt to certain aspects of reality is determined by type. SFs are naturally able to be involved in these things. NTs have to adapt because they are not. That's the point. They have to adapt because it's not natural.

---

Why is it generally accepted? What is your source, did the Russians write about it? Because whoever accepts it seems to miss in my mind a relevant point. Focusing on and reacting to immediate situations without seeing the overall consequences can be disastrous socially. Being able to focus on things most readily provided by people can drive someone insane mentally and lead them to emotionally withdraw. And well as the perceived benefits of social interaction you're speaking of. So who can say what is "natural"? Is there even a natural state/environment to exist in?

Quote:

---

Alpha SF's natural focus is on how their senses affect them and the emotional energy that occurs because of that. Gamma NTs don't focus on it. Gamma NTs focus on long term processes and actions. Alpha SFs don't focus on that. Call whichever simple or worthwhile. I'm sorry my use of those terms was entirely subjective. Socionics determines mental focuses which highly infleunce motivations.

---

I don't think you are coming to the proper conclusion with this. Senses aren't just, the rock is cold, there is the stream, this cupcake is good. Emotions that happen because of senses aren't just short term things. Our senses can take in theoretical processes and evaluate them. Emotions can signal problems in the structure of a theory, or the value of a book. And so on. Your description of Alpha SFs isn't a good contrast because it assumes certain things are mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

There is a common definition of fun. Anything enjoyable. I find almost anything 'enjoyable' to be pointless if that is the only purpose it has. Yes, I do things that are enjoyable and fun, but I put no value to them, and would readily drop them for anything I consider to be 'worthwhile.' I can't come up with a less vague term, because it is quite vague. Maybe, something that lasts. Something that helps. Something productive to be stereotypical. You might agree with this sentiment, in which case I was wrong and I apologize.

---

Hm well I keep trying to get what you're saying but it's hard because even if you're not doing something technically "enjoyable", you're deriving satisfaction and meaning from it, and it's your choice. And I don't tend to think that all Alphas or Alpha SFs derive satisfaction and meaning from "enjoyable"..well, I know I don't :P But this vaguely confuses me lol. Anyway.

Quote:

---

I have typed an NT who I would not consider to be overly intelligent. I tend to associate NTs as types who approach the world in a certain way. The approach is most closely described by the word thinking. I have no other way of describing it. Thinking about the world is just as much strength as it is a weakness when taken too far, as NTs do. You seem to be overly touchy about the fact that I consider SFs to be the opposite of that. SFs are certainly intelligent in their own regard, but their style of intelligence is just different from NTs. I believe that we agree and that it is just a difference in semantics.

---

Hm I see what you're getting at. Terms can be a bitch, yeah. Although I think you did a poor job of conveying this. Simplifications can go to hell, most places don't automatically assume the definition of social retard or airhead is as you are extrapolating on them now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

I think it makes sense that Se and Fe are most related to social interaction as compared to anything else in socionics. Se has an immediacy of reaction because of it's direct connection to observation. The anti-introspectivenss of the element helps socially. Fe involves emotional involvement because of it's focus on emotional stimulus. The receptiveness of this element helps socially.

Can you really argue that there is not a clear difference of sociability between ESFx and INTx at least most of the time?

---

What if you fall flat on your face in the cafeteria. What if you register the physical weight of dislike, the pain and otherwise tangible sensations. That's related to observation. Immediacy of reaction. Be hit and hit back. Smack smack smack. Does the anti introspection of that help socially? Does emotional involvement always breed social adaptability? What if you've got too much emotional involvement spinning in your head? What if you're second guessing that against the ability to correctly observe your environment? I don't care if it's generally accepted. Do you know what it feels like? You don't seem to be able to properly adjust for circumstance. Social ease doesn't exist in a vacuum. Introspection can help socially, impartiality to passing emotion can help socially. Then, it's not the functions that make us butterflies.

Quote:

---

Certainly possible. Socionics is not my end all explanation to sociability. I actually hold that the enneagram has a much stronger hold on it, but it is certainly conceivable that there is a lot more to it then just these two things.

---

Hey, cool.

If anything, Si and Fe make Alpha SFs able to be very socially apt or very socially awkward. Depends on how much thought you put into your actions. Social ability is gifted to only a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

"social intricacies" is too broad, so you are correct. All NTs are relatively unaware of "social intricacies" in one way or another. What I meant was that alpha NTs are seen as being unaware of how to behave properly or correctly. Whats right and whats wrong. You could argue that it is the same for gamma NTs, but here is where the semantics are off. Gamma NTs are unaware of how to act with the atmosphere or group. Alpha NTs are unaware of the individual interplay or personal affectation. Things like attraction, edicate, etc. Alpha NTs are unaware of the undercurrent in social interaction. That may be a better way of describing it. The internal framework of social interaction. That's most likely better since it implies static SF.

---

Yeah, that's one way of putting it. Although it's not specific enough to what I've observed. It's just a theoretical summary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

I think it has to do with the different approach to abstractions. The way an Alpha SF understands a theory is to extrapolate it into the environment to see if it works, you know, like matching things up. Does it match with reality? I think that's how Alpha NTs are their duals, cause they will come up with a pattern of thought that will compliment that, or underlying rules for processes. I liked what you said once about Si seemingly coming out of nowhere for you. I think it's because, at least in my experience, it takes a long time for me to synthesize a concept into something solid. And with someone with an Si polr, who didn't observe the process as it evolved, or see the data the Si person collected about their environment, it seems really out of nowhere. But for a person like you, you're synthesizing things in a more internal way, the expression of it depends on certain external boundaries or principles or sense observations holding it in place, that's kind of how I view Ni working with Se. The thing is, we aren't so great at the ego functions of our duals. An information loop makes for a more complete understanding of a concept. A Gamma NT cannot always successfully qualify their internal subjective insights enough that they are observationally in tune with the environment, a Alpha SF cannot always successfully qualify their external subjective insights enough that they make sense according to internal coherency. And then you have the temperaments coming into conflict which would intensify the disparity of the rhythm of such things. And in this way they conflict. Does that make sense?

---

That's all well and good, but it's only Ni versus Si.

Quote:

---

I know they're not actually airheads, but I still tend to think their intellectual bent will often overshadow or even eliminate the airhead perception.

---

The three alpha SFs I know have been pretty air headed imo. Also, many self-typed alpha SFs on this board come off as pretty air headed.

Quote:

---

Honestly I often don't like my duals and/or we don't seem to recognize each other at first. It's very messy as opposed to starting with a clean slate. But maybe that's cause I'm unhealthy perhaps.

---

I'm getting the impression that you aren't alpha SF. Though I could definitely be wrong.

Quote:

---

Ok then we'll have to disagree here. I think those are covered more accurately by stuff like enneagram and instincts. I tend to think Socionics is more structure of mentalities than content.

---

mentalities create values and motivations don't they?

Quote:

---

Why is it generally accepted? What is your source, did the Russians write about it? Because whoever accepts it seems to miss in my mind a relevant point. Focusing on and reacting to immediate situations without seeing the overall consequences can be disastrous socially. Being able to focus on things most readily provided by people can drive someone insane mentally and lead them to emotionally withdraw. And well as the perceived benefits of social interaction you're speaking of. So who can say what is "natural"? Is there even a natural state/environment to exist in?

---

SF the social club?

Quote:

---

I don't think you are coming to the proper conclusion with this. Senses aren't just, the rock is cold, there is the stream, this cupcake is good. Emotions that happen because of senses aren't just short term things. Our senses can take in theoretical processes and evaluate them. Emotions can signal problems in the structure of a theory, or the value of a book. And so on. Your description of Alpha SFs isn't a good contrast because it assumes certain things are mutually exclusive.

---

Senses can't take in theoretical processes. They take in concrete observations, hence 'senses'. Emotions can't signal problems in the structure of a theory. That is what thinking is. Senses can verify theories, and emotions can result from a problem in the structure of a theory. Moving beyond what is observable requires intuition. Spotting structural problems requires thinking. They are mutually exclusive. Thankfully, everyone utilizes them all to varying degrees.

Quote:

---

Hm well I keep trying to get what you're saying but it's hard because even if you're not doing something technically "enjoyable", you're deriving satisfaction and meaning from it, and it's your choice. And I don't tend to think that all Alphas or Alpha SFs derive satisfaction and meaning from "enjoyable"..well, I know I don't :P But this vaguely confuses me lol. Anyway.

---

That is a good point. I've always associated "enjoyable" as closely related to something that is physically or emotionally involved. "Enjoyable" has always been related to either Si or Fe. I found it to be fitting that FeSi is the enthusiast and SiFe is the hedonist.

Azeroffs, my duals want to kill me. They have told me to my face, they want to kill me. They can't handle my Fe/Ne. :P

However Azeroffs, I think we need to discuss some things before a label of airheadedness can be assigned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

What if you fall flat on your face in the cafeteria.unrelated What if you register the physical weight of dislike, the pain and otherwise tangible sensations.huh? that sounds more like Si That's related to observation. Immediacy of reaction. Be hit and hit back. Smack smack smack. Does the anti introspection of that help socially?yes, you are more suited to react quickly with that kind of focus. Reaction is required for social interaction but of course strong Se isn't required for that. Does emotional involvement always breed social adaptability? What if you've got too much emotional involvement spinning in your head? What if you're second guessing that against the ability to correctly observe your environment?Having it is better than not having it, and it is still a social focus meaning that you will have a stronger understanding of it even if you can't navigate it wellI don't care if it's generally accepted. Do you know what it feels like? You don't seem to be able to properly adjust for circumstance. Social ease doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Introspection can help socially, impartiality to passing emotion can help socially. Then, it's not the functions that make us butterflies.but they don't help with social understandings

---

I think I may have spotted where the misunderstanding is. I'm not associating type with being outgoing or being social. I'm associating type with an awareness of 'social intricacies' (this time it works). NTs might be the biggest social butterflies in the world, but likely they will stumble and step on toes all the way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamajama

Azeroffs, my duals want to kill me. They have told me to my face, they want to kill me. They can't handle my Fe/Ne. :P

---

Like I said, I could very well be wrong. I'm not basing it off much, and I'm hardly certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamajama

However Azeroffs, I think we need to discuss some things before a label of airheadedness can be assigned.

---

I'm entitled to my own judgment. If you want to argue about whether or not NTs in general see SFs as air-headed in general, show me that I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinocchio

Alphas: treat each person as a soul (Extroverted+Internal - Ne, Fe) but treat humanity as meat (Introverted+External - Si, Ti).
Gammas: treat humanity as souls (Introverted+Internal - Ni, Fi) but treat each person as meat (Extroverted+External - De, Te).

---

I like this approach to describing the quadras.

Alphas: Idealism is in the object, pragmatism is in the subject.
Gammas: Idealism is in the subject, pragmatism is in the object.

The aristocratic types have a different way of slicing it. Suppose we say SF values epitomize life and NT values epitomize wisdom:

Betas: Life is in the object, wisdom is in the subject.
Deltas: Wisdom is in the object, life is in the subject.

I don't really like the object/subject keywords for the distinction though. It seems vague to me perhaps due to language. Categories versus instances may be more clear, I will think about this more.

So if I am gamma, idealism is a general way of categorizing whereas if I am alpha I am looking for specific instances and examples of a particular ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

I'm entitled to my own judgment. If you want to argue about whether or not NTs in general see SFs as air-headed in general, show me that I'm wrong.

---

I do not care what your judgement is, and exactly what do you mean by me showing you that you are wrong? Do I have to beat you in a debate? I am not sure what the criterion of being or not being "air-headed" is.

The fact remains that Alpha SF in general like to go wheeeee online for reasons unknown. It doesn't make them vacuous in real life. People can't be defined by online interaction very well, and I stand by that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

That's all well and good, but it's only Ni versus Si.

---

:lol: oh well I tried. perhaps someday.

Quote:

---

The three alpha SFs I know have been pretty air headed imo. Also, many self-typed alpha SFs on this board come off as pretty air headed.

---

They do..I kind of get annoyed at having the harry the seriousness out of them. But they're cute little mofos.

Quote:

---

I'm getting the impression that you aren't alpha SF. Though I could definitely be wrong.

---

Yeah, I do wonder about that often.

Quote:

---

mentalities create values and motivations don't they?

---

I meant mentality like organization. Like I picture people with different thought processes coming to ultimately the same conclusion. Though my argument has a lot to do with explaining the seeming disparity between my alleged self type, so perhaps you are right and I will need to re-examine that.

Quote:

---

SF the social club?

---

lol I hate the social clubs. I won't debate you on that one.

Quote:

---

Senses can't take in theoretical processes. They take in concrete observations, hence 'senses'. Emotions can't signal problems in the structure of a theory. That is what thinking is. Senses can verify theories, and emotions can result from a problem in the structure of a theory. Moving beyond what is observable requires intuition. Spotting structural problems requires thinking. They are mutually exclusive. Thankfully, everyone utilizes them all to varying degrees.

---

Ok..hm. Well it's nice to know your definitions anyway.

Quote:

---

That is a good point. I've always associated "enjoyable" as closely related to something that is physically or emotionally involved. "Enjoyable" has always been related to either Si or Fe. I found it to be fitting that FeSi is the enthusiast and SiFe is the hedonist.

---

Ok, that's good. Maybe I'll pull a pirate and change my type or something. idk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamajama

I do not care what your judgement is, and exactly what do you mean by me showing you that you are wrong? Do I have to beat you in a debate? I am not sure what the criterion of being or not being "air-headed" is.

---

make a thread. Ask other NTs what they think. Remember, I'm not saying that they are objectively air-headed. Just that they are perceived to be especially by NTs.

Quote:

---

The fact remains that Alpha SF in general like to go wheeeee online for reasons unknown. It doesn't make them vacuous in real life. People can't be defined by online interaction very well, and I stand by that.

---

:lol: I agree, but my opinion isn't based entirely from online interaction. Regardless, it's perceptions of SFs that we are talking about, not actualities.

edit: maybe what I'm saying makes more sense if I say that I don't consider SF types as air-headed. I consider people who I have typed and have typed themselves as SFs as air-headed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strrrng

Therefore, betas treat each person as meat with a soul (Se+Fe) and humanity as a meaty soul (Ni+Ti).

---

:lol: Actually that's not bad :lol:

Lots of SFs are dumb. I don't see why that's controversial. In fact 90% of people are dumb, including NTs.


Anyway,
Intelligence is more influenced by individual differences than socionic ones, and by that I mean that IQ/creativity/neuroticism/introspectionism/open-mindedness are not related to type, or only marginally related to type under certain contexts. At least ime typing people.

Many SFs consistently get straight As in school. Many SFs are also creative, especially so in that they don't need to elaborate on a logical basis or factual accuracy for their theories to make sense. They can come up with unusually crazy/fascinating insights that are still applicable in reality.


ETA: If an NT believes all SFs are dumb, that feeling almost universally goes away in college. Just saying.

Another thing, it's rare to see sane NTs classifying people according to who's smart and who's not. It's too ambiguous of a classification scheme that lacks a good definition. Define intelligence. Most of the eccentricities and intellectual assumptions one'd have to hold on to are more prevalent in aristocratic quadras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jxrtes

Most of the eccentricities and intellectual assumptions one'd have to hold on to are more prevalent in aristocratic quadras.

---

:lol: 'Tis true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilly

:lol: Actually that's not bad :lol:

---

You know, I was actually thinking about it, and it kind of sheds light on the differences between aristocrats and democrats.

Explanation:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinnochio

Alphas: treat each person as a soul (Extroverted+Internal - Ne, Fe) but treat humanity as meat (Introverted+External - Si, Ti).
Gammas: treat humanity as souls (Introverted+Internal - Ni, Fi) but treat each person as meat (Extroverted+External - De, Te).

---

With democrats, each "realm" of reality (the objective and subjective, respectively) accords with itself. Things and people illustrate themselves naturally because of this. Even if gammas view people as meat, they don't act on it in any specific way.

Contrast to aristocrats:

Betas treat people as meat with souls (Se+Fe) and treat humanity as meat with a soul (Ni+Ti).
Deltas treat people as souls with meat (Ne+Te) and treat humanity as a soul with meat (Si+Fi)

This is why betas take raw, objective qualities of people/things and attempt to affect them on an emotional level (Se–>Fe), while assuming that there is an underlying meat whose soul evolves (Ti–>Ni). Conversely, deltas assume that people have souls whose meat can be used (Ne–>Te), while assuming that an underlying soul will develop into meat (Fi–>Si).

It's the most fucking retarded metaphor I've ever heard or analyzed, but it still makes some odd sense. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

Yeah, I do wonder about that often.

---

Then why all the passive-aggressive justifications for alpha SFs? Wandering around a forum like a butterfly who occasionally spurts out glittering gold is a piss-ass pretense to vacillate on your own type. Going from alluding to conflictor communication, to speculatively agreeing on a different type for yourself, in the span of what? one page, is foolish. You are gleaning emotional dynamics within a sensory realm and filtering them out within your subjective frame of reference with the amorphousness of a retarded water snake. And that adds up to SiFe+IP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glamourama

wtf? you've ragged on me for something similar before

---

I rag on you for passive-aggressiveness in general. I actually don't think dolphin is especially passive-aggressive, except when it concerns her type; and my annoyance basically stems from witnessing a consistent attitude of light-hearted attention seeking to veil insecurity over committing to a type, which I think is petty.

Quote:

---

and i've seen you bitch about it in general: you can't stand it when people provide unclear and/or occasional opinions, when they seem irresolute or fleeting, not necessarily willing to try to defend what they say to death.

---

That's right. Why speak, if you haven't thought through what you have to say? It's a waste of energy, not to mention an insult to reason.

Quote:

---

what a shitty thing to criticize people for, especially involving a topic that involves so much subjectivity and uncertainty as socionics; someone questioning their own type isn't foolish, what is foolish is when someone rigidly expects consistent certainty about socionics from people and gives them shit when they don't provide it. get it through your thick skull already that not everyone thinks like you.

---

Nowhere did I say that someone questioning their own type is foolish, but nice straw-man.

And I don't expect complete certainty with socionics; I expect consistency and clarity from people in their attitudes and beliefs. Sorry if I don't cater to the pathetic recourse of ambiguity that some people believe the incipient field of socionics apparently grants them.

Removed at User Request

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinocchio

Hmmm... you mean S&F and N&T? I still can't visualize this :|.

---

Yeah it needs some work. :|

Suppose there is a good way of describing S&F, N&T, N&F, S&T. Then you could succinctly describe each quadra by their extroverted and introverted preferences, and each club by their strong and weak preferences.

S&F are strong animal drives. Fear, pain, comfort, pleasure. Essentially living life in the moment. N&T can't express desire or longing. They are more concerned with prediction, intellect, theory, clarity, mechanism.

S&T are more methodical and exacting. They deal with gritty real-world stuff that is definite in nature. As socionics theory puts it, external. They see requirements, consequences, details, tasks. N&F are more involved with abstract ideals, hopes, aspirations, guidance, humanness, right/wrong. Things that are non-absolute in nature yet important to us regardless.

So we can see these as four teams of traits, or master traits. Perhaps names for them would be Intellect, Lifestyle, Method, and Ideal? Whatever they are called, each person would have a strong team, a weak team, an introvert team, and an extrovert team.

If you have a strong (or weak) team you are going to have mixed feelings about its object/subject nature, and vice versa. So humanity is/isn't meat, individuals are/aren't souls is a generalization that only alpha or gamma can make. Beta and delta are more likely to generalize on the N&T and S&F areas. Perhaps something like how humanity is/isn't animalistic, individuals are/aren't robots.

Beta: Humanity is robotic, individuals are animals.
Delta: Humanity is animalistic, individuals are robots.

NF: Purpose
NT: Theory
ST: Implementation
SF: Use

I like the Introverted+Internal=Individuals are souls, etc. for Democratic quadras; however, Aristocratic quadras are polarized over different dichotomies:

Delta:

• Static+Internal
• Dynamic+External

Beta:

• Static+External
• Dynamic+Internal

I'll leave it to someone else to give those names. (The Internal=Soul, External=Meat pattern would be good to continue.)

Betas are also "Alpha when Rational" and "Researcher when Introverted," but those strike me as being less clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion

NF: Purpose
NT: Theory
ST: Implementation
SF: Use

---

So... INTj: Universal purpose, clear theory, individual implementation, unclear use

Static NF: "This is what our purpose should be"
Dynamic NF: "This is how we should choose purposes"

Static NT: "This is what our theory is"
Dynamic NT: "This is how our theory has/is developed/developing"

Static ST: "This is what we are implementing"
Dynamic ST: "This is how we implement things"

Static SF: "This is what we should use/enjoy"
Dynamic SF: "This is how we should use/enjoy things"

Removed at User Request

Good try :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion

Static NF: "This is what our purpose should be"
Dynamic NF: "This is how we should choose purposes"

Static NT: "This is what our theory is"
Dynamic NT: "This is how our theory has/is developed/developing"

Static ST: "This is what we are implementing"
Dynamic ST: "This is how we implement things"

Static SF: "This is what we should use/enjoy"
Dynamic SF: "This is how we should use/enjoy things"

---

I recall that someone (Augusta?) called relationships that switch over Static/Dynamic "relationships of attraction" and relationships that don't switch "relationships of repulsion." In a way that's hard to justify when comparing quasi-identical to mirror; however, these descriptions of yours show the sense behind it. Statics decide "what to do with" whereas dynamic types decide "what to do" - "Here is what we will enjoy" and "Here is what we will think about" (Gamma SF, Alpha NT), while very different from each other, actually clash: "so which thing are we dealing with again?" However, "Here is what we will enjoy" and "Here is how we will think about it" (Gamma) do not clash, despite being just as different from each other; they are irrelevant to each other, and accomplish both thinking and enjoying. Similarly, "Here is what we will think about" and "Here is how we will think about it" (Alpha NT, Gamma NT) is no contradiction, although it has some duplication of effort. "Here is what we will think about" and "Here is what we will think about" (Alpha NT identical/mirror) does have a potential clash, but is easy to reconcile, due to matching goals.

That's a good elaboration.

*puts on thinking cap*

Don't feed the sociopath, friends.

Bump! I find this thread rather interesting.

I remember when I delivered my compulsory criminal record (empty BTW) to an ISFj. She looked very relieved and said things that made me cringe at her again...
WTF is going through their heads? Not much apparently but it must be very faulty. They don't understand hidden implications at all.